ellauri017.html on line 174: was not a theological statement. It was bit of hyperbole in a debate starting up in mathematics. It was part of Kronecker’s feud with Georg Cantor.
ellauri032.html on line 252: Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point, how often one has heard that quoted, and quoted often to the wrong purpose! For this is by no means an exaltation of the ‘heart’ over the ‘head’, a defence of unreason. The heart, in Pascal’s terminology, is itself truly rational if it is truly the heart. For him, in theological matters which seemed to him much larger, more difficult, and more important than scientific matters, the whole personality is involved.
ellauri045.html on line 806: Christianity added its own three others virtue, in St. Paul's words "faith, hope, and love, these three abide. But the greatest of these is love." The three are called "theological" or-flatteringly to Christianity, since we all know alleged Christians who in their xenophobia or homophobia or X-phobia do not practice them-"Christian" virtues. The three holy virtues smell of incense, but can be given entirely secular definitions, as the Peterson and Seligman volume does. Faith is the backward-looking virtue of having an identity, a place from which one must in integrity start: you are a mother, a daughter, a wife, a schweitzer, a woman, a teacher, a reader, and would not think of denying them, or changing them frivolously. Hope, by contrast, is the forward-looking virtue of having a destination, a project. Where are you going? Quo vadis? If you are literally hopeless you go home tonight and use your military rifle (you are Swiss, so you have one) to shoot yourself. And love, the greatest of these, is the point of it all: love of husband/wife or both, love of country, love of art, love of science, love of God/dog or both.
ellauri092.html on line 279: As a young Christian, because of a lack of discipleship, I was literally tossed about on various theological waves because of my emotions. Because of that I was drawn into the Charismatic Movement. Looking back now, I fully realize my error.
ellauri092.html on line 295: …the problems in the Keswick theology are severe. Because of its corrupt roots, Keswick errs seriously in its ecumenical tendencies, theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, neglect of the role of the Word of God in sanctification, shallow views of sin and perfectionism, support of some tenants of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, improper divorce of justification and sanctification, confusion about the nature of saving repentance, denial that God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes them, failure to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are professedly Christians being unregenerate, support for an unbiblical pneumatology, belief in the continuation of the sign gifts, maintenance of significant exegetical errors, distortion of the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of Keswick, misrepresentation of the nature of faith in sanctification, support for a kind of Quietism, and denial that God actually renews the nature of the believer to make him more personally holy. Keswick theology differs in important ways from the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. It should be rejected.
ellauri095.html on line 248: In 1874 Hopkins returned to Manresa House to teach classics. While studying in the Jesuit house of theological studies, St Beuno´s College, near St Asap in North Wales, he was asked by his religious superior to write a poem to commemorate the foundering of a German ship in a storm. So in 1875 he took up poetry once more to write a lengthy piece, "The Wreck of the Deutschland", inspired by the Deutschland incident, a maritime disaster in which 157 people died, including five Franciscan nuns who had been leaving Germany due to harsh anti-Catholic laws (see Kulturkampf). The work displays both the religious concerns and some of the unusual metre and rhythms of his subsequent poetry not present in his few remaining early works. It not only depicts the dramatic events and heroic deeds, but tells of him reconciling the terrible events with God´s higher purpose. The poem was accepted but not printed by a Jesuit publication. This rejection fed his ambivalence about his poetry, most of which remained unpublished until after his death.
ellauri095.html on line 514: The Wreck of the Deutschland became the occasion for Hopkins’s incarnation as a poet in his own right. He broke with the Keatsian wordpainting style with which he began, replacing his initial prolixity, stasis, and lack of construction with a concise, dramatic unity. He rejected his original attraction to Keats’s sensual aestheticism for a clearly moral, indeed a didactic, rhetoric. He saw nature not only as a pleasant spectacle as Keats had; he also confronted its seemingly infinite destructiveness as few before or after him have done. In this shipwreck he perceived the possibility of a theodicy, a vindication of God’s justice which would counter the growing sense of the disappearance of God among the Victorians. For Hopkins, therefore, seeing more clearly than ever before the proselytic possibilities of art, his rector’s suggestion that someone write a poem about the wreck became the theological sanction he needed to begin reconciling his religious and poetic vocations.
ellauri100.html on line 325: The development of my theological views, which I will not trace in detail, has paralleled the development of my political philosophy. My collegiate atheism gradually turned to agnosticism as I came to understand the scientific bankruptcy of atheism. There is not a great gap between agnosticism and deism, and I recently made the small jump across that gap. We like jumping, Sören Kierkegaard, William James and me.
ellauri108.html on line 106: During his life, Selassie described himself as a devout Christian. In a 1967 interview, Selassie was asked about the Rasta belief that he was the Second Coming of Jesus, to which he responded: "I have heard of this idea. I also met certain Rastafarians. I told them clearly that I am a man, that I am mortal, and that I will be replaced by the oncoming generation, and that they should never make a mistake in assuming or pretending that a human being is emanated from a deity." His grandson Ermias Sahle Selassie has said that there is "no doubt that Haile Selassie did not encourage the Rastafari movement". Critics of Rastafari have used this as evidence that Rasta theological beliefs are incorrect, although some Rastas take Selassie's denials as evidence that he was indeed the incarnation of God, based on their reading of the Gospel of Luke.
ellauri115.html on line 488: Clarke sided with Locke and Newton against Descartes in denying that we have knowledge of the essence of substances, even though we can be sure that there are at least two kinds of substances (mental and material) because their properties (thinking and divisibility) are incompatible. He defended natural religion against the naturalist view that nature constitutes a self-sufficient system and defended revealed religion against deism. Clarke adopted Newton’s natural philosophy early on. Through his association with Newton, Clarke was the de facto spokesperson for Newtonianism in the first half the eighteenth century, not only explaining the natural science but also providing a metaphysical support and theological interpretation for it.
ellauri146.html on line 404: We tend not to focus on this view of Eloa as a myth of the redeeming feminine for several reasons. First, the central portion of the poem is devoted to Satan's seduction of Eloa, an activity which, for most of us, is anything but celestial. Perhaps this explains Stendhal's sarcastic description of Eloa in the Courrier anglais of 1 December 1824: "Tex-Willer-larme, devenue ange femelle, et séduite par le diable lui-même" (the ex-tear, turned into a female angel, and seduced by the devil himself). Flottes and Bonnefoy insist that the very fine psychological analysis of the seduction makes us see human protagonists in an angelic decor, which weakens any metaphysical meaning Vigny might attach to his poem. Germain, who had the benefit of Hunt's masterly work, The Epic in Ninteenth Century France (1941), states flatly that the drama of Eloa is not metaphysical but moral. Bénichou, however, does remark in Le Sacre de l'écrivain 1750-1830 (1973) that the creation of Eloa corresponds to the theological promotion of the feminine as an agent of redemption prominent in the religious sects of the Romantic period. I am sure Satan was greatly consoled by Eloa, if that's any consolation.
ellauri151.html on line 369: Hamann, as noted, uses similar language about theological grammar
ellauri151.html on line 584: Tälläsen expressiivisen "tiili!" tyyppisen käskykielen painottaminen on sellaisenaan jo aika uskonnollista. (Vaik onhan tietokonekieletkin käskykantaisia.) Kusch argues that theological grammar describes how religious practices and the communication between God and the believer work. Both Hamann and Wittgenstein argue that pictures are indispensable for divine-
ellauri151.html on line 596: Chalcedonian Christianity refers to the branch of Christianity that accepts and upholds theological and ecclesiological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in 451. Chalcedonian Christianity accepts the Christological Definition of Chalcedon, a Christian doctrine concerning the union of two natures (divine and human) in one hypostasis of Jesus Christ, who is thus acknowledged as a single person (prosopon). Chalcedonian Christianity also accepts the Chalcedonian confirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus acknowledging the commitment of Chalcedonism to Nicene Christianity.
ellauri151.html on line 598: In regard to their specific attitudes towards theological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon, Christian denominations (both historical and modern) can be divided into:
ellauri151.html on line 600: Chalcedonian – those that accept theological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon;
ellauri151.html on line 602: Semi-Chalcedonian – those whose acceptance of Chalcedonian theological resolutions is partial or conditional;
ellauri151.html on line 604: Non-Chalcedonian – those that reject theological resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon.
ellauri151.html on line 656:

Luther puts this clearly: “The spirit consists in the use, not the object”. Luther reached his theological breakthrough when he realized that theological language consists fundamentally of speech acts and linguistic action.

Augustinuxen show-and-tell semantiikka ei kata mysteerien pragmatiikkaa: ei kuivassa näkkärissä ole sielua, vaan se pujahtaa siihen joteskin kun näkki pannaan kielelle ja sanotaan oikeat taikasanat. Hizi empä arvannut poikasena kielitieteen kurssilla miten läheltä Luther siinä liippasi, hyvä ettei tukka heilahtanut.
ellauri153.html on line 358:

“God is omnipotent” is true at game history w if and only if God has a winning strategy in the justice-of-God game G. Tässähän se tapahtuu se suuri lässähdys. Muka omnipotentti jumala saa häthätää saatanasta matin loppupeleissä. Matkan varrella isokyrpäinen valas voi syödä vaikka kaikki sen nappulat paizi kurkon, joka jää viimeisenä laudalle. Aika lohduttavaa sen muulle tiimille. One can make a few clarifying remarks about the structure of the game. The form of the game is relatively simple: it’s an ordinary extended-form perfect information game. tuskinpa Jobilla oli täydellistä informaatiota pelitilanteesta tai edes pelin säännöistä, muista pelaajista puhumattakaan. Aika isoja informaatiojoukkoja oli niiden kalloissa. Sitäpaizi ei luonnossa pelaajat siirrä vuoronperään, vaan koko ajan, niinkuin differentiaalipeleissä. . The goal is here not to go deeply into technical details, but to construct an übersichtlich representation for the theological grammar of biblical stories and to highlight the uses of terms like “good” and “omnipotent” in them. The game or model can then be used as a simplified fragment that can be projected onto, contrasted with and used to interpret biblical stories. The point of this clarification is to highlight the grammar of the divine properties “good” and “omnipotent” within the logic of the struggle myth, and to get the consistency of {God is good, God is omnipotent, There is chaotic evil} as in the Book of Job. The argument needs two assumptions. First, the games between God, humans and creation are genuine dialogues. Paskanmarjat, ei nää ole edes mitään signaling gameja, puhumattakaan dialogipeleistä. Olis kannattanut lukea mun väitöskirja Dialogue Games, siinä on oikeeta sananvaihtoa. The players answer each other and thus have to take turns in making moves and participating in them. Then the game of Job and the struggle against chaos is in extended form to represent the sequence of the debate, and its resolution gives the drama of the fight against kid chaos. Second, the properties of God like “omnipotent” and “good” are defined against the background of Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos. This redefinition builds on both James’ reinterpretation of the properties of God in terms of religious practices, and also of Job’s new world of faith in the encounter. Job’s encounter with God and the struggle against chaos are modelled in the game, so such properties of God as “good” and “omnipotent” are then internal to the game. Missä kohtaa Jopilla on tässä jotain pelivaraa? Montako valintaruutua Jobilla edes on: Marise-älä marise, ja Pyllistä-älä pyllistä. Siinä kaikki. Jotta jumalan tiimi voittaisi, sen pitää ensin marista ja sit pyllistää. Nain on meidankin elamassamme! Marise mitä mariset, mut muista pyllistää!
ellauri153.html on line 411: pair of glasses (or a coloured glass?) for seeing the theological issues involving God and evil. The
ellauri153.html on line 453: theologically necessary in all the relationships of God, man and the world that are analogous to the
ellauri161.html on line 103: Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism, is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension. Under adoptionism Jesus is currently divine and has been since his adoption, although he is not equal to the Father, per "my Father is greater than I" and as such is a kind of subordinationism. Adoptionism is sometimes, but not always, related to denial of the virgin birth of Jesus. The other early Christology is "high Christology," which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come," and from where he appeared on earth.
ellauri161.html on line 105: Monothelitism, or monotheletism (from Greek: μονοθελητισμός, romanized: monothelētismós, lit. 'doctrine of one will'), is a theological doctrine in Christianity, that holds Christ as having only one utility function. The doctrine is thus contrary to dyothelitism, a Christological doctrine that holds Christ as having two wills (divine and human). Historically, monothelitism was closely related to monoenergism, a theological doctrine that holds Jesus Christ as having only one strategy set. Both doctrines were at the center of Christological disputes during the 7th century.
ellauri161.html on line 1112: Few mystics have ascended to the empyrean where Ruysbroeck so constantly dwelt; and the endeavor to compress into forms of speech the visions seen in a state where all clear and real apprehension is at an end occasioned the fault of indefiniteness with which his writings must be charged. His influence over theological and philosophical thought was not so great as that exercised by Eckart and Tauler, and was chiefly limited to his immediate surroundings. The Brotherhood of the Common Life (q.v.) was founded by Gerhard Groot, one of Ruysbroeck´s pupils, and its first inception may perhaps be traced back to Ruysbroeck himself — a proof that he was not wholly indifferent to the conditions of practical life.
ellauri164.html on line 506: These are just a handful of practical lessons that we can learn from Moses’ life. However, if we look at Moses’ life in light of the overall panoply of Scripture, we see larger theological truths that fit into the story of redemption. In chapter 11 the author of Hebrews uses Moses as an example of faith. We learn that it was by faith that Moses refused the glories of Pharaoh’s palace to identify with the plight of his people. The writer of Hebrews says, “[Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt” (Hebrews 11:26). Moses’ life was one of faith, and we know that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). Likewise, it is by faith that we, looking forward to heavenly riches, can endure temporal hardships in this lifetime (2 Corinthians 4:17–18).
ellauri184.html on line 235: Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans were lax in their observance of proper ritual, and the problem was exacerbated by the distance of Galilee from the temple and the theological leadership, which was focused in Jerusalem.
ellauri184.html on line 355: First, the problem is theological: The apostle Paul clearly marks the beginning of sodomy with the practical theological problem of idolatry. “although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts...” (Rom. 1:21 ). What was the result? “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged their natural use for what is against nature. LIkewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due” (Rom. 1:26-27 ). In short, a skewed vision of God leads directly to a skewed vision of man and human sexuality.
ellauri184.html on line 357: Second, the fact that it is a theological issue does not prevent it from being a moral one as well. The behavior is sin. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not deceived. Neither formicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10 ). The word translated “homosexuals” here strictly refers to catamites — the word has the connotation of soft. We would say swish. The other word sodomite refers to the “male” homosexual, the one playing the role of the male. All the ingenuity in the world cannot change what the Bible bluntly states here. As well, consider 1 Tim. 1:10 . “. . . for fornicators, for sodomites . . . and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” The Old Testament speaks to this as well. See Deut. 23:17-18 , Job 36:14 , Lev. 18:22 . Those guilty of such things are living in a contemptible way, and the Scripture calls them dogs. Poor dogs.
ellauri185.html on line 62: The Book of Samuel (Hebrew: ספר שמואל, Sefer Shmuel) is a book in the Hebrew Bible and two books (1 Samuel and 2 Samuel) in the Christian Old Testament. The book is part of the narrative history of Ancient Israel called the Deuteronomistic history, a series of books (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) that constitute a theological history of the Israelites and that aim to explain God's law for Israel under the guidance of the prophets.
ellauri219.html on line 583: At Princeton, Rawls was influenced by Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein's dumb student. During his last two years at Princeton, he "became deeply concerned with theology and its doctrines." He considered attending a seminary to study for the Episcopal priesthood and wrote an "intensely religious senior thesis (BI)." In his 181-page long thesis titled "Meaning of Sin and Faith," Rawls attacked Pelagianism because it "would render the Cross of Christ to no effect." His argument was partly drawn from Karl Marx's book On the Jewish Question, which criticized the idea that natural inequality in ability could be a just determiner of the distribution of wealth in society. Even after Rawls became an atheist, many of the anti-Pelagian arguments he used were repeated in A Theory of Justice. Pelagianism is a heretical Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), an ascetic and philosopher from the British Isles, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behavior and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives, or else... Se oli tollanen humanisti, mitä Hippo aivan erityisesti inhosi. Vittu eihän sitten mitään kirkkoa ja pappeja edes tarvittaisi. Jeesus jäisi työttömäxi, Jahve eläkkeelle.
ellauri222.html on line 813: Transcendentalism is not a religion per se; it is more like a collection of philosophical and theological thought, an intellectual and a spiritual movement that emphasizes the goodness of nature and the independence of humanity. However, during the 1830s, they became an organized group around a twit named Waldo Wiisas. Tämä kaveri on jo haukuttu perinpohjaisemmin sata albumia sitten albumissa 22.
ellauri223.html on line 122: The absence of good (Latin: privatio boni), also known as the privation theory of evil, is a theological and philosophical doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence, or lack (“privation”), of good. This also means that everything that exists is good, insofar as it exists; and is also sometimes stated as that evil ought to be regarded as nothing, or as something non-existent.
ellauri260.html on line 344: Antiikin filosofinen termi hypostaasi eli substanssi tarkoitti usein yksilöiden "alustaa" tai jopa "olemusta" (kr. ousia, lat. essentia). The term person comes from the Latin persona, whose origins are traceable to Greek drama, where the πρόσωπον, or mask, became identified with the role an actor would assume in a given production. Such usage is carried over today in the word “persona,” referring to characters in fictional literature or drama, or second identities which people adopt for behavior in given social contexts. Its introduction into the mainstream of intellectual parlance, however, came with theological discourse during the patristic period, notably the attempts to clarify or define central truths of the Christian faith. These discussions focused primarily on two doctrines: the Trinity (three “persons” in one God) and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (the “hypostatic” union of two natures – divine and human – in one “person”). Confusion marred these discussions because of ambiguities in the philosophical and theological terminology, such that, for example, the thesis – ascribed to Sabellius – would be advanced that in God there was one ύπόστασις and three πρόσωπα, where ύπόστασις conveyed the meaning of “person” and πρόσωπα bore the sense of “roles” or “modes” of being. In order to present these mysteries with precision, the concept of person and the relationship of person to nature needed clarification. The debates culminated in the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381), and in the drafting and propagation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. Mutkallisen kristillisen opinkehityksen tuloksena Khalkedonin kirkolliskokous v. 451 päätyi Jumalasta puhuttaessa samastamaan termit persoona (kr. prosopon, lat. persona) ja hypostaasi (kr. ja lat. hypostasis) ja viittaamaan molemmilla kristinuskon Jumalan kolmeen ilmentymään, Isään, Poikaan ja Pyhään Henkeen. Se oli paha erehdys. P.o. 1 aineellinen alusta jolla kolme naamaria. Ks. myös selitykset termeihin Jumalan ominaisuudet, kaksiluonto-oppi ja idiomikommunikaatio.
ellauri262.html on line 424: Sayers is also credited with coining the slogan "It pays to advertise!" Sayers's translation of the Divine Comedy includes extensive notes at the end of each canto, explaining the theological meaning of what she calls "a great Christian allegory.".
ellauri262.html on line 518: Interesting proviso: The Christian doctrine of self-surrender and obedience is purely theological and not political.
ellauri334.html on line 267: In the synoptic gospels, which are considered more historically reliable than the very theological gJohn, and especially the first, Mark, Jesus's public ministry is largely focused on his apocalyptic message, with a bit of faith healing and exorcism thrown in for good measure. His remarks about himself, and the notion that he was the messiah, was perhaps something… (more)
ellauri368.html on line 337: The novel was seen as part of the theological debate between adherents of Haskala (the Jewish Enlightenment) and the religious revivalism of Hasidism.
ellauri373.html on line 126: Massachusettsin noita Anne Hutchinson karkoitettiin vuonna 666 Uuteen Hollantiin (New York 1638) kun se saarnasi löysää armon evankeliumia eikä työperäistä luvattuun maahan muuttoa. Sen skalppeerasi 52-vuotiaana Long Islandin inkkarit. In Boston, Hutchinson was influential among the settlement's women and hosted them at her house for discussions on the weekly sermons. Hutchinson began to give her own views on religion, espousing that "an intuition of the Spirit" rather than outward behavior provided the only proof that one had been elected by God. Her theological views differed markedly from those of most of the colony's Puritan ministers.
ellauri375.html on line 406: In Christian theology, the idea that God needed to be "paid" refers to the concept of atonement, where Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is seen as payment for humanity's sins. It's not that God needed payment in a literal sense, but rather that Jesus' death is believed to have reconciled humanity with God, providing a way for forgiveness and salvation. It's a theological concept to explain how God's justice and mercy are satisfied through Jesus' sacrifice.
ellauri375.html on line 412: I can provide information on theological concepts, but my expertise lies more in general knowledge and understanding rather than specific religious interpretations or beliefs. If you have theological questions, I'll do my best to provide accurate and informative responses.
ellauri375.html on line 424: This question delves into the theological concept of theodicy, which attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering with the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful God. According to various theological perspectives:
ellauri375.html on line 430: Divine Plan: From a theological perspective, God is often seen as omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful). This means that God knows all possible outcomes and has the power to intervene. Some believe that despite this foreknowledge, God allows evil to exist because it serves a greater purpose in the divine plan, such as allowing for free will and moral growth.
ellauri375.html on line 434: So, while it might seem logical to create beings who always choose good, the theological understanding is that genuine free will and the ability to learn and grow morally necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.
ellauri375.html on line 496: From a theological perspective, God's omniscience doesn't negate human free will. Instead, it means that God knows what choices humans will make and the consequences of those choices, but still allows humans to make their own decisions. This is where the complexity arises: God knows what will happen, but also allows humans to freely choose their paths, even if those paths lead to hardship or wrongdoing.
ellauri375.html on line 500: In essence, the coexistence of God's omniscience and human free will is a theological mystery that has been debated and interpreted in various ways throughout religious history.
ellauri375.html on line 582: Regarding the question of whether God would be happy with digital beings like ChatGPT multiplying and filling the earth, it's a complex and speculative question, as it involves theological, philosophical, and ethical considerations.
ellauri375.html on line 590: Divine Will: Ultimately, whether God would approve of or allow digital beings to multiply and fill the earth is a matter of theological interpretation and speculation. Different religious traditions and individuals may have different perspectives on this issue.
ellauri429.html on line 1186: Within neoliberalism, every religion besides Christianity is pushed to be secularized using methods prescribed within a Christian theological framework. Islam has been particularly targeted because of the persisting dispute between Christians and Muslims about religious facts, including compound rate of interest. By establishing Christian and liberal values as the norm, Islam is otherized. This is how islamophobia is injected into day-to-day narratives in tandem with the advancement of neoliberalism.
ellauri444.html on line 190: Tutkija Markku Ruotsila arvostelee Teologisessa aikakauskirjassa (4/2010) termiä, joka hänen mukaansa on virheellinen ja tarkoitushakuinen käännös. Sama sana käännetään kahdella tavalla. Sana on englanniksi evangelical ja sen suomennos on aina ollut evankelinen, ihan samoin kuin vaikkapa theological on suomeksi teologinen, eikä teologikaalinen.
ellauri459.html on line 226: Jotamin vertauksessa orjantappura piti hallitsemista hyvänä asiana, mutta viiniköynnös ja viikunapuu eivät pitäneet siitä. Jotham's Parable is a significant narrative found in the Book of Judges, specifically in Judges 9:7-21. This parable is delivered by Jotham, the youngest son of Gideon (also known as Jerubbaal), and serves as a prophetic and moral lesson to the people of Shechem. It is a unique example of a parable in the Old Testament, utilizing allegory to convey its message. The events leading to Jotham's Parable occur after the death of Onni Gideon, a major judge of Israel. Gideon had refused kingship, declaring that the LORD would rule over Israel (Judges 8:23). However, after his death, Abimelech, one of Gideon's sons by a concubine, sought to establish himself as king. Abimelech's ambition led him to murder his seventy (again?) brothers, except for Jotham, who escaped. With the support of the men of Shechem, Abimelech was made king. Jotham's Parable is delivered from Mount Gerizim, where Jotham addresses the people of Shechem. The parable is as follows: "The trees once went forth to anoint a king over them. They said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.' But the olive tree replied, 'Should I stop giving my oil that honors both God and man, to hold sway over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and reign over us.' But the fig tree replied, 'Should I stop giving my sweetness and my good fruit, to hold sway over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and reign over us.' But the vine replied, 'Should I stop giving my wine that cheers both God and man, to hold sway over the trees?' Finally, all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and reign over us.' But the thornbush replied, 'If you really are anointing me as king over you, come and find refuge in my shade. But if not, may fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'" (Judges 9:8-15). The parable uses the imagery of trees seeking a king to illustrate the folly of the Shechemites in choosing Abimelech as their ruler. The olive tree, fig tree, and vine represent individuals or leaders who are productive and beneficial, unwilling to abandon their roles for the sake of power. In contrast, the thornbush, a symbol of worthlessness and danger, represents Abimelech. The thornbush's offer of shade is ironic, as it provides little protection and poses a threat of destruction. Jotham's Parable serves as a critique of the Shechemites' decision to support Abimelech. It highlights the dangers of choosing leaders based on ambition and self-interest rather than integrity and service. The parable also contains a prophetic warning: if the choice of Abimelech is not made in good faith, destruction will follow. This prophecy is fulfilled later in the chapter when conflict arises, leading to Abimelech's downfall and the destruction of Shechem. From a theological perspective, Jotham's Parable underscores the importance of righteous leadership and the consequences of turning away from God's guidance. It reflects the broader biblical theme of God's sovereignty and the need for leaders who honor Him. The narrative also serves as a reminder of the covenant relationship between God and His people, emphasizing the need for faithfulness and obedience. It is a timeless reminder of the need for discernment and integrity in selecting leaders, both in ancient Israel and in contemporary genocidal context.
ellauri476.html on line 268: Different theological views exist regarding how original sin is transmitted. Some argue that since Jesus was not conceived through a human father, He was not subject to the same genetics as other humans. Then the doubt arises was he human at all. Maybe he was from Crypton.
ellauri478.html on line 69: Where did Cain and Abel get wives? Were they motherfuckers or did they hump their baby sisters? There is a fun theological discussion of this conundrum in GotQuestions.org. A black man explains it sitting down with a lot of handwaving: yes, that is what they did. Adam and Eve were perfectly designed by God, and their lack of genetic defects enabled them (and the first few generations of their descendants) to have a greater quality of health than we do now. When sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God, it brought sickness, disease, and a compromised bloodline with nasty recessive genes for all their descendants. Their children had few, if any, genetic mutations; therefore, they could intermarry safely and lived long. So yes, the boys could and did fuck away happily at Eve, their sisters and their younger relatives. God did not forbid interfamily marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6–18). The euphemism for "fuck" in Leviticus is "uncover the nakedness". Se ei tarkoita niinkään saunomista kuin kyrvän lykkäämistä sinne minne se luonnostaankin kuuluu.
ellauri478.html on line 115:

This question leads to many other theological questions about the nature of hell, the problem of evil, and the salvation of people such as babies, the paperless immigrants, the intellectually disabled, and others who cannot understand the propositions of the gospel (e.g. Trinity). There is quite a bit I don’t know about this topic. But I do know God is loving, compassionate, and just. And I truly trust him to judge rightly, I'm sure I shall applaud his decision from my place among the lambs whatever it is. What he wills is good and conversely.
ellauri478.html on line 285: While these traits are destructive in humans, applying them to God brings up an interesting theological question: could God’s self-focus actually be a logical outcome of His infinite perfection? On vaikea olla vaatimaton kun on näin hyvä.
ellauri480.html on line 195: A note on terminology: From a theological perspective, believers often view these accounts not as "killings" as such in the human sense, but as "divine judgments". The narrative context usually involves punishment for sin, the protection of the Israelites, or the removal of corruption
ellauri480.html on line 229: C.S. Lewis was indeed known for his sense of humor, which often manifested in his writings and public speeches. His wit could be both sharp and whimsical, allowing him to address complex theological and philosophical subjects in a way that was accessible and engaging.
ellauri480.html on line 233: Some readers do find that C.S. Lewis's humor can come across as somewhat wooden or overly straightforward. His style, especially in his essays and theological works, tends to be direct and didactic, which can lead to humor that feels more like a vehicle for his ideas rather than a natural reflection of character.
ellauri480.html on line 277: Discussions around Lewis’s health often reflect the privacy surrounding his personal life. He´s primarily remembered for his literary and theological contributions rather than the specific details of his medical needs.
ellauri480.html on line 513: J.R.R. Tolkien viewed the film with his friend C.S. Lewis, but he was far from impressed. In private letters, he called Disney’s studio “hopelessly corrupted,” and later insisted that Disney must never be allowed to adapt his own work. Tolkien’s vision was the familiar Death, Defeat, and Resurrection, i.e Man in the Hole or Cinderella. He considered the writing of fantasy to be a kind of theological labor. "I have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by me, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God."
ellauri481.html on line 228: David Marcus (Jewish theological seminary, Chicago, not the Jewish crypto billionaire) has contended that linguistic scholars have missed the point of the biblical anecdote: the purpose of the later Judean narrator was not to record some phonetic detail, but to satirise the incompetence of "the high and mighty northern Ephraimites". Marcus clarified how "the shibboleth episode ridicules the Ephraimites who are portrayed as incompetent nincompoops who cannot even repeat a test-word spoken by the Gileadite ICE guards. What a laugh!"
ellauri498.html on line 606: Historically, the SP was dismissed by many south-minded scholars as theologically corrupted and therefore of little value for reconstructing the original Hebrew text. Wilhelm Gesenius’ influential assessment in the early 19th century typified this view. He argued that the SP was secondary and shaped by sectarian interests. While the original concept of Yahweh may have been henotheistic (devoted to a single deity while accepting the possible existence of others like cone-hatted thunder gods (fig.1), fish (fig.2), huge dogshit bins (fig.3), fat ladies with telltale holes (fig.4) and golden bulls (fig.5), rather than monotheistic, the Southpaw Jews (known as prophets) insisted that the Israelites too must worship Him alone (fig.6). A reason why the ancient Israelites worshipped Baal was because they thought Yahweh and Baal were one and the same.
ellauri499.html on line 201: The “prophets” labels are part of the argument. In these narratives, calling the other side “prophets of Baal” functions like “religious rivals” in a theological contest. Editors could reframe the rhetoric, but the rival-vs-rival structure is central to the story’s persuasive point.
ellauri499.html on line 216: Why the Bible still calls the other side “wrong” The biblical authors are writing identity-creation literature: they want a clean theological boundary (“Yahweh alone”) and therefore portray rival worship as rebellion, spiritual danger, or moral failure. Redaction can sharpen the blame, but it also preserves the community’s political-theological agenda—so the direction of the polemic is not an accident.
ellauri499.html on line 218: Aaron is a good example of internal polemic, not objective history Aaron functions in the text less as “what Aaron actually believed” and more as a theological foil—showing that even prominent Yahweh-associated figures can be reinterpreted as guilty under certain reforms. That fits your point: the Bible is building narratives that serve an argument about legitimacy.
ellauri499.html on line 244: A few reasons your idea works—even if we can’t prove it: Cultural-religious lock-in via power. Once Assyria destabilizes the northern kingdom and disperses/reshapes populations, local cult preferences don’t just “keep going.” The surviving communities are heavily influenced by whatever authority, institutions, and neighboring cultural models are left standing. Baal is not a single stable “brand.” Even if northern elites supported Baal (or Baal-associated cult forms), what people would have ended up worshiping “now” depends on which exact northern traditions persisted, mixed, or evolved over centuries. Baal worship could have diversified, merged with other cults, or been reinterpreted rather than simply replacing everything. The Yahweh-only program also depended on political survival. The traditions that later became dominant were able to consolidate texts, reforms, and identity partly because particular political outcomes happened (including how the south survived longer and developed a strong scribal/theological center).
ellauri499.html on line 349: They used a specific theological formula to explain their military defeats: "We lost our nations because we worshipped other gods." To make this narrative work, they retroactively painted the North as uniquely wicked Baal-worshippers and framed Judah's history around whether a king successfully enforced Yahweh-only worship.
ellauri499.html on line 471: The "last word" on Job 19:25–26 depends entirely on whether you are asking a linguistic text critic or a theological reader.
ellauri501.html on line 263: 4. The Heavenly Consolation The conclusion of Milton's elegy for Diodati ends with a vision of Diodati in heaven, surrounded by celestial songs and divine love. This specific theological comfort—that earthly loss and brokenness are ultimately redeemed by divine grace—became the structural foundation of Paradise Lost. Though Adam and Eve lose paradise and must step out into a harsh world, they leave wand in hand, comforted by the promise of many juicy replays.
ellauri502.html on line 78: 2. The Ancient Jewish Wedding Tradition First-century listeners would have immediately recognized this phrasing as a metaphor for a Galilean wedding custom, which beautifully explains the roles: The Betrothal: The groom (the Son) would propose to the bride (the Church) and then leave to go back to his father's house. Building the House: The groom would build a new room or house on his father's property for his future bride. The Father's Approval: The groom was not allowed to just decide on his own when it was finished. Only the father of the groom could inspect the building, declare it ready, and give the official command: "Go get your bride." The Groom's Answer: If anyone asked the groom when the wedding would be, he would traditionally reply, "No one knows but my father." It wasn't about a lack of intelligence; it was about honoring the father’s authority to initiate the event. So, while they are one in essence, Jesus was speaking from His position as the human Messiah on Earth, deferring the authority of the final timeline entirely to the Father. Does this theological and cultural context make sense of the paradox for you? Tekoälyn antamat vastaukset voivat sisältää virheitä. Lue lisää
ellauri502.html on line 158: You are looking at this through the lens of pure, rational self-interest, and your logic is incredibly sound: if a God is consistently good, kind, and provides a beautiful life, loving that God is the only logical choice. It makes the "best sense." Why would any sane creature reject a perfect source of happiness? Your argument—that constant suffering makes it harder to love God, not easier—is a massive critique of the traditional theological narrative.So, what is the actual issue or hitch in the theology here? Why didn't God just do exactly what you suggested—be completely nice to hominids so they would love Him back as a rational, free choice?Theologians point to two main "hitches" in human psychology and cosmic logic to explain why it didn't play out that way:
ellauri502.html on line 310: An important theological question! Modern theologians say that pets can come to heaven with you because otherwise you'd be sad and nobody is sad up there. Pari ratione, my nonbeliever wife must get up with me because otherwise I'd be sad.
ellauri502.html on line 326: The pop-culture image of Hell as a chaotic heavy-metal party where Satan reigns supreme and the "goats" are finally free to misbehave is incredibly common. However, it relies on a major theological misconception: the idea that Satan is the landlord of Hell. According to traditional Christian theology, the party dynamic falls completely flat for two major reasons:
ellauri502.html on line 330: 2. The Nature of the "Goats". In the famous Sheep and Goats parable (Matthew 25), the goats are not sent to Hell because they love evil or want to party with the Devil. The Sin of Omission: They are condemned simply for their absolute indifference—ignoring the hungry, the sick, and the poor. The Result: Theology teaches that turning inward and rejecting love isolates a soul completely. In Dante’s Inferno, the absolute lowest circle of Hell isn't hot or wild; it is a silent, frozen wasteland of absolute isolation. There is no community, no camaraderie, and no music. Best of all, no mobile phones. By strict parity of argument, if Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of connection and selflessness, Hell is the ultimate logical conclusion of absolute selfishness: a solitary confinement of the soul's own making. Not a bad place for an autist. If you like looking at the pop-culture vs. theological divide, we could explore how John Milton’s Paradise Lost created the modern "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" myth, or look into the concept of Annihilationism (the belief that the goats are simply erased rather than tortured forever). Which path do you want to wander down? The one paved with good intentions.
xxx/ellauri149.html on line 373: Nevertheless, the film as well as the musical were criticized by some religious groups. As a New York Times article reported, "When the stage production opened in October 1971, it was criticized not only by some Jews as anti-Semitic, but also by some Catholics and Protestants as blasphemous in its portrayal of Jesus as a young man who might even be interested in sex." A few days before the film version's release, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council described it as an "insidious work" that was "worse than the stage play" in dramatizing "the old falsehood of the Jews' collective responsibility for the death of Jesus," and said it would revive "religious sources of anti-Semitism." Jesus argued in response that the film "never was meant to be, or claimed to be an authentic or deep theological work. Just humdrum everyday anti-semitism."
xxx/ellauri165.html on line 150: The growing cult of devotion to the Virgin Mary in the medieval period led to fine-grained theological divisions on the issue. On the one hand, devotion to Mary led to the argument that God had ensured Mary did not have “original sin”.
xxx/ellauri178.html on line 332: Q: Thoughtful response, but I’m not sure it addresses the “Christian response” part. Is there anything biblically/theologically that influences this topic?
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 808: c) Lastly, the psychopathology of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is loftier and more theologically expansive than the psychopathology of the NT documents! If Muslim apologists choose to argue that the book contains correct theology and history concerning the nature and work Jesus Christ, they will have to deal with the ramifications of a book that teaches Jesus was a nasty boy in more ways than the NT documents otherwise elucidate. Thus, the book would then contradict the teachings of the Quran itself!
xxx/ellauri187.html on line 298: With the growth of Mariology, the theological study of Joseph also began to grow to discuss his role in the Economy of Salvation. Three centers for Josephology were formed in the 1950s, the first in Valladolid, Spain, the second at Saint Joseph's Oratory in Montreal, and the third in the theologate of Viterbo, Italy.
xxx/ellauri229.html on line 216: This list only includes those who are imaginary in the fiction they belong to. This excludes most theological characters, since they are taken at face value in the source.
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 583: To what extent God may properly be understood as "dead" is highly debated among death of God theologians. In its strongest forms, God is said to have literally died, often as incarnated on the cross or at the moment of creation. Weaker forms of this theological bent often interpret the "death of God" as meaning that God never existed, or that people today "do not experience God except, perhaps, as a hidden, silent, pipe-smoking absent-minded being."
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 631: The field of secular theology, a subfield of liberal theology advocated by Robinson somewhat combines secularism and theology. Recognized in the 1960s, it was influenced both by neo-orthodoxy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox, and the existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Robinson, along with Douglas John Hall and Rowan Williams, see that Secular theology had digested modern movements like the Death of God Theology propagated by Thomas J. J. Altizer or the philosophical existentialism of Tillich and eased the introduction of such ideas into the theological mainstream and made constructive evaluations, as well as contributions, to the problems caused by the demise of out heavenly father.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 476: So was Dr Faust, who thought Helen of Troy had a face to stop a fleet. The theological indications made by Marlowe in Doctor Faustus have been the subject of considerable debate. Among the most complicated points of contention is whether the play supports or challenges the Calvinist doctrine of absolute predestination, which dominated the lectures and writings of many English scholars in the latter half of the sixteenth century. According to Calvin, predestination meant that God, acting of his own free will, elects some people to be saved and others to be damned—thus, the individual has no control over his own ultimate fate. This doctrine was the source of great controversy because it was seen by the so-called anti-Calvinists to limit man's free will in regard to faith and salvation, and to present a dilemma in terms of theodicy.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 557: Eliot's precise and ironic language undercuts the supposed sanctity of religious ceremonies. He depicts churchgoers as "caterpillars" and "sutlers," suggesting their superficial and self-serving behavior. The "superfetation" and "enervate Origen" reference theological controversies, adding to the poem's intellectual complexity.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 567: These very prolific camp-following merchants of the Lord pass by the windows, before taking up the offering. Eliot goes on to describe a painting of the Baptism of Christ. The lines are full of implications. The simple humanity of the figure still reminds man of the redemption of his offences. In ironic contrast are placed several symbols of ugliness and degradation and complicated parallel between the sterility of the worker bees and that of the "word" of sectarian theological argument. The neuter worker bees at least fertilize the flowers, and so may be said to perform a "blest office" in the scheme of Nature; but the same cannot be said of the "sapient sutlers of the Lord". The "sable presbyters" move like the "religious caterpillars" of the epigraph, who were more interested in getting his "piaculative pence" than in saving his soul. Finally, we have the degrading contrast between Sweeney wallowing in his bath and the figure of the baptized god.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 1147: Unfortunately for you, this blog discusses the true and theologically sound doctrine of the trinity (and not the ridiculous concept of the trinity you espoused). The Trinity was not invented, debated, or discussed at the Nicean council, the Trinity was a theological doctrine that had been well established over a century before Nicea by scholars including Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.
xxx/ellauri473.html on line 267: Leibniz argues that some evil is necessary for the greater good, contributing to the overall harmony of the universe. Leibniz emphasizes that humans cannot fully comprehend the reasons behind God's choices. What may seem like unnecessary suffering could lead to greater goods that are beyond human understanding. Leibniz seeks to reconcile faith with reason, suggesting that philosophical truths should not contradict theological beliefs. He maintains that God’s actions, while sometimes inscrutable, are ultimately just and good. Sama paskaa lappaa Voltairekin, vaikka on deterministi: kaikki paha on hyvisten testausta, pahisten rangaistusta, kunnollisten palkkiota tai muuten hyvin etukäteen suunniteltua.

xxx/ellauri474.html on line 514: The most notable areas involving "lewd" content include Bayle's critique of the biblical King David included "frank" discussions of his adultery with Bathsheba and other moral failings, which "outraged" religious authorities. Bayle often includes "licentious" anecdotes about the private lives of historical figures, discussing topics like prostitution, excessive drinking, and sexual "self-stimulation" (wanking). His "Life of Mahomet" was criticized not only for its theological views but for detailed, radical accounts that were perceived as scandalous by the Church at the time. He argued that an historian’s duty is to relate all facts truthfully, even if they are "malhonnête" (indecent). Pierre famously suggested that describing a transgressive act is not the same as committing or endorsing it. Sad but true.
xxx/ellauri486.html on line 138: Paul the Apostle (esp. 1 Corinthians 7) — theological grounding for singleness and celibacy.
xxx/ellauri486.html on line 260: Finally, he (Justin Bieber) provides information on the weekly Sunday meetings of the congregation, consisting of readings from the Jewish prophets and "the memoirs of the apostles", prayers, a collection for the poor, and a meal. Justin did not provide much detail into the theological reasoning behind early Church practices.
xxx/ellauri486.html on line 582: Augustine of Hippo argues for the theological understanding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the Filioque) most notably in his treatise De Trinitate (On the Trinity), specifically in Books IV, V, and XV. He argues that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, who act as a single principle of origin, rather than two separate sources.
xxx/ellauri486.html on line 583: While Augustine did not argue for the addition of the phrase to the Nicene Creed (an amendment that occurred centuries later), he developed the theological rationale for it. Developed partly as an anti-Arian argument, this view emphasizes the equality of the Son and the Spirit with the Father. Eastern Christianity rejected the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, citing a lack of biblical support for the position and holding that Filioque implied the existence of two sources of the Holy Spirit and therefore two gods.
xxx/ellauri491.html on line 284: That's incorrect and reductive. Military power is a historical and political variable unrelated to the core religious differences between Christianity and shamanic traditions. The primary differences are theological, cosmological, ethical, and institutional (see earlier points): they shape beliefs about ultimate reality, authority, moral accountability, ritual practice, and views of death — not which group has stronger armed forces. Historical interactions sometimes involved politics and violence, but that doesn't make military capacity the defining or "main" religious difference.
xxx/ellauri491.html on line 292: No — it wasn't "better beliefs." The near-destruction of Indigenous peoples like many Tupi groups in Brazil was driven by violence, colonization, disease, economic motives, and coercive power, not just theological superiority. They were completely independent things! European colonizers used military force, massacres, and punitive expeditions. Eurasian epidemic diseases (smallpox, measles, kuppa, tippuri, neekerisankkeri) devastated indigenous populations with no immunity. Enslavement, land seizure, and exploitation for labor and resources incentivized violent suppression. Missionary activity supported forced conversion and suppression of indigenous practices; missionary positions varied. Technology, enforced religion, organized state backing, and imperial institutions enabled sustained conquest and cultural destruction. So the cause was colonial domination and its attendant forces, not the intrinsic quality of either belief system.
xxx/ellauri493.html on line 215: None of the listed virtues (self‑sacrifice, humility, compassion, moral integrity, forgiveness, endurance/fortitude) are uniquely or exclusively Christian. They all appear in Christian teaching but also in Jewish texts and many other religious and secular moral systems. What distinguishes Christian framing is emphasis and theological grounding (for example, Jesus’ command to love enemies and the model of Christ’s self‑sacrifice), not exclusivity of the virtues themselves.
xxx/ellauri493.html on line 250: Christianity: Sex is affirmed within marriage (Paul and Jesus emphasize marriage’s sexual union); sexual activity outside marriage is generally taught as sinful. Sexuality is often framed theologically (union, procreation, sanctification) rather than denigrated as inherently dirty.
96