Explaining The Bible Part 1: Angelology, Satanology, Demonology

[Railazel]

So, having been in this forum for quite awhile now, it is seemingly the case that people here, outside of those who are Christian, seemingly know very little or have some misconceptions about the Bible. I figured that, since our beloved game has Christian- inspired characters and tropes, I might as well shed some light on some topics.

The first topic I want to discuss is Angelology, Satanology, and Demonology. These are considered one topic because, in some circles, they combine to make Angelology and I'll explain why in a minute.

Angelology is about angels. The Bible makes the case that Angels exist and act in various duties according to God's plan. They don't have free will and are sinless, however they aren't robots but are embodiments of God's will. This, of course, gets rid of the notion of "fallen angels" but those angels can't exist because they are in direct communication with God and know him on a more personal level than we do, so they know his power first- hand and, thus, have no incentive to betray him.

So what about Satan? Satan is a category of angel called the "adversary, accuser, or advisory". The whole objective of a satan- angel is to scout out the "bad eggs" among God's people and make a case against them to God so that he may make measures to either lead them in the right track or punish them.

Demons are actually the name of spirits in Roman myth to explain mental illnesses and some diseases. They, also, are used to explain enlightenments or increases in knowledge and reasoning. Demons were adopted in New Testament vocabulary as symbolism for mental illnesses.

In conclusion, Angels are a canonical entity in the Bible. However, Satan and demons are not. They were born from paganistic views that had seeped their way into the early Church. Any mention of them in the Bible is generally symbolic.

 

[InfernalOverkill]

outside of those who are Christian, seemingly know very little or have some misconceptions about the Bible

Au contraire. Atheists tend to be the most informed about the Bible (and religion in general), hence our rejection of it. I'll leave now before I get carried away and banned

 

[Loopy]

So, having been in this forum for quite awhile now, it is seemingly the case that people here, outside of those who are Christian, seemingly know very little or have some misconceptions about the Bible.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to make. It can also be argued that Christians have misconceptions about the Bible and know very little outside of what their vicar, pastor or reverend tells them because they haven't actually read the whole Bible for themselves.

The most common being that Christians overwhelmingly thinking that the image of an angel is a humanoid with feathery wings. But, if you read other parts of the bible, they are multi-headed and winged beings surrounded by fire wheels, and they move on a vector. Not exactly the image I was brought up with in Sunday school.:tongue:

One could also argue that people have misconceptions about any religion that isn't their own for whatever reason. Christianity isn't a special case in this regard.

Demons are actually the name of spirits in Roman myth to explain mental illnesses and some diseases. They, also, are used to explain enlightenments or increases in knowledge and reasoning. Demons were adopted in New Testament vocabulary as symbolism for mental illnesses.

Try telling that to the Christians who believe demons exist as an actual physical entity. To them, demons are more than a symbol of mental illness; demons are something they fight against that are actually in the world doing evil. It would be like tearing out a huge chunk of their belief system.

It's like when the Pope told Catholics that Limbo no longer existed and then claimed he had Papal infallibility again so that he could not be challenged about his statement. It really upset a lot of adults who now worry for the souls of their unbaptised babes. Without Limbo, where will their souls go? It's resulted in some denying the Pope ever said this because it compromises their beliefs so much.

In conclusion, Angels are a canonical entity in the Bible. However, Satan and demons are not. They were born from paganistic views that had seeped their way into the early Church. Any mention of them in the Bible is generally symbolic.

Satan is more than symbolic when you have so many different denominations proclaiming their belief in Satan and the evil it represents. They believe he is a fallen angel and that hell is a real place. It's not symbolic to them.
Satan and its revolt, along with other angels is also referenced in the bible and believed by many Christians.


Revelation 12:9-12
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

It is a core tenent of Christian belief that Satan is real, Satan rebelled and was punished for that, along with its fellow conspirators; and the only way to be saved from Satan is to believe in Jesus. That is what Christianity is about, and to say that Satan is merely a symbol is ignoring the many, many people who base their faith around Jesus' sacrifice saving them from joining Satan in hell.

If you think their belief in that is wrong, then clearly those Christians must also have misconceptions about the Bible. As for me, I think you get out of reading the Bible what you put into it. No one is wrong because it is their belief and their interpretation of what happened. If they want to believe that Satan is more than a symbol, then who are we to say they are ill informed or have misconceptions? Each to their own I say.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

Bibley things

Yeeeeah...a lot of what you said is completely contrary to things I explicitly know of from the Bible, and even some of the Apocrypha.

In the end though, who gives a hoot? Mythology is a lot of fun.

 

[Angel]

The bible is not a book you can read from cover to cover like a novel and take it as is. Truth is, something that old and that took sooooo long to construct reflects the diversity of both the writers and the times they were writing.

For example, Revelation is known as one of the hardest books to understand. I mean, the language alone is chock full of allegory and symbolism. Read that shizzle literally and it'll explode your head - John wrote it during a time of exile for a people who were being persecuted, so the language was specifically couched in code that would have been understood at the time but that we struggle to comprehend today. Much like a little fish symbol today is used to denote something or someone as a Christian - back in the day it was code to indicate when and where a secret meeting would be held to learn about Jesus away from the dangers of the Roman soldiers.

As far as angels, demons and satan goes, I would say it is unwise for Christians to overly concern themselves with such things. The focus of the bible is to concentrate on the salvation of Jesus Christ, not on the actions of angels and the like. Sure, we need to be aware but not focus on them at the expense of the message of the Gospel. That sort of obssessiveness can make people crazy.

I appreciate that this is the sort of thread that can become filled with flaming so I'll just step in preemptively and request that regardless of religous affiliation (or none at all), please keep this discussion respectful and without the usual anti/pro religion slanging matches.

 

[Loopy]

The bible is not a book you can read from cover to cover like a novel and take it as is. Truth is, something that old and that took sooooo long to construct reflects the diversity of both the writers and the times they were writing.

For example, Revelation is known as one of the hardest books to understand. I mean, the language alone is chock full of allegory and symbolism. Read that shizzle literally and it'll explode your head.

I think so long as people are given the tools to understand and know the historical background, then it should be much more accessible for people to read. That's like saying Shakespeare is inaccessible and incomprehensible because of the English language changing so much from then to now. So long as you are informed and somewhat intelligent, it is easy to understand, and like the Bible, no individual's interpretation of it is 100% the right one.

That's what I find interesting about the Bible. There is no one way to interpret it. People can read the same passage and then draw a completely different conclusion. Having said that, it is bothersome when there are different denominations going to war with each other because each side believes that the same passage means something completely different to each side.
I'm not going to say either side is wrong, people should be allowed to come to their own conclusions, but I do wish they wouldn't fight so much. To me, that is not very Chrsitian like behaviour. Instead of ripping stripes from each other, they should be embracing their shared belief in the Bible and the salvation of Jesus.

As far as angels, demons and satan goes, I would say it is unwise for Christians to overly concern themselves with such things. The focus of the bible is to concentrate on the salvation of Jesus Christ, not on the actions of angels and the like. Sure, we need to be aware but not focus on them at the expense of the message of the Gospel. That sort of obssessiveness can make people crazy.

I agree that people shouldn't constantly think about Satan and going to hell, but, sadly, I've seen quite a few sermons, especially in America, focusing on going to hell and burning there. It's like they're trying to scare people into believing, which I think is very wrong.
People should come to accept Jesus and believe in him of their own accord and in their own way, and not be forced to believe because they are scared of hell.

That kind of 'you're going to hell' preaching makes for some very messed up people who live their lives freaking out about doing the slightest thing that will send them to Satan. They're also the kind of people who tell others they are going to hell for being with someone outside marriage, being gay, eating pork, or having a child out of wedlock. Messed up. They should stop with the hell threats and focus on the good things that the bible teaches like loving your neighbour, being an honest person and helping in the local community.

That's so much better than threatening people with a hell that they might not even believe in. That, sadly, is one of the things that gives Christianity a bad name. There are people there with so much hate and prejudice towards others, and yet they do not look to themselves and see what is wrong. I think Jesus said something about that too; removing the clod from your own eye before you do it to someone else. Before you criticise others, look at your own failings and see how you can improve yourself. That's pretty sound advice to me.

Churches should just focus on teaching good morals and raising good people, using the stories in the Bible as an example of how to act in life. All this talk of hell and damnation is unconstructive and gets in the way of the message Christianity is trying to send.

 

[V]

No idea will remain unchanged over time. Satan is a mashup now, and there's not exactly any "right" way to explain what he is. It's vague in the start of the Bible and almost as vague at the end.

If there was an adversary in the first few pages of the Bible intent on getting Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden for whatever reason, he's hardly any different from the "dragon" that will come and try to rule the earth before god defeats it for whatever reason. He's an adversary, got it. And an adversary can take whatever shape or form but the concept is basically unchanged. It doesn't matter if people think it's a snake, an ex-angel or a guy with horns. The character is just an all-purpose enemy, or an allegory for the fact people have the ability to do bad things and some character like it exists in nearly all religions, because it's a common trait in people to want to personify sin as something non-human and outside of us but that wants to 'infect' us.

 

[ef9dante_oSsshea]

and here i thought that the catholic sermons were mad lol

 

[TWOxACROSS]

reflects the diversity of both the writers and the times they were writing.

Case in point; we can probably stop with that "Go forth and multiply" business. I mean...that was written in a time when the population of the Earth was no where near what it is today, and today we have an overpopulation problem :tongue:

 

[Loopy]

Case in point; we can probably stop with that "Go forth and multiply" business. I mean...that was written in a time when the population of the Earth was no where near what it is today, and today we have an overpopulation problem :tongue:

Back then, it would've made sense to 'go forth and multiply'. But these days it seems like they use this command just to breed more followers and then get more money from them.

It really bugs me when people say their fertility and amount of children they produce is god's doing or the Bible told them to do it. Those people need to take some responsibility for their own actions instead of being passive and thinking god will make everything alright. The world getting fuller and won't be able to take any more...or is that the will of god too? I guess it would be according to people like that.

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I have more of a problem that the passage is the entire reason for Catholicism's idiotic stance on safe sex, where a condom prevents pregnancy, so therefore it is against God's will. Then somehow the backwards-ass thinking that children should not be taught sexual education, so a lot of American Catholic children are both wholly uninformed and unwilling to use protection.

The Pope really needs to do something about that. He's been doing pretty damn awesome so far.

 

[Loopy]

I have more of a problem that the passage is the entire reason for Catholicism's idiotic stance on safe sex, where a condom prevents pregnancy, so therefore it is against God's will. Then somehow the backwards-ass thinking that children should not be taught sexual education, so a lot of American Catholic children are both wholly uninformed and unwilling to use protection.

The Pope really needs to do something about that. He's been doing pretty damn awesome so far.

Not only in America, but also Africa, which has a lot of AIDS because they follow this no condoms and contraception rule.

Then there's that quiverfull offshoot who don't believe in contraception either and turn their women into brood mares while the men go off and have affairs. :facepalm: How do women get sucked in to that rubbish?!

 

[Railazel]

Yeeeeah...a lot of what you said is completely contrary to things I explicitly know of from the Bible, and even some of the Apocrypha.

If you list the contradictions, I can explain them.

Au contraire. Atheists tend to be the most informed about the Bible (and religion in general), hence our rejection of it.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement to make.

I apologize for disregarding those who are well- informed.

Try telling that to the Christians who believe demons exist as an actual physical entity.

You don't think I know that? I'm Christian and I was raised with that very same belief. However, I never really understood it as a child and, as I got older, it made less sense to me. After doing some research, I came to the realization that the Old Testament writers didn't believe in an entity of evil and I simply adopted that view.

Churches should just focus on teaching good morals and raising good people, using the stories in the Bible as an example of how to act in life. All this talk of hell and damnation is unconstructive and gets in the way of the message Christianity is trying to send.

But "going to Hell" is a part of teaching those morals. While I don't like how churches portray Damnation and Hell, the fact remains that if you do wrong, you get punished- either in this life or the next.

The bible is not a book you can read from cover to cover like a novel and take it as is. Truth is, something that old and that took sooooo long to construct reflects the diversity of both the writers and the times they were writing.

I assume I need to make my religious faith more obvious? I have read and studied the Bible intently, so much so that I've grown accustomed to criticize the modern entity of the Church, how the Bible is taught, and how misconceptions have formed not only in modern era but even as far back as after the first century. Then again, who is going to listen to a twenty- year old?

As far as angels, demons and satan goes, I would say it is unwise for Christians to overly concern themselves with such things. The focus of the bible is to concentrate on the salvation of Jesus Christ, not on the actions of angels and the like. Sure, we need to be aware but not focus on them at the expense of the message of the Gospel. That sort of obssessiveness can make people crazy.

The point of this thread is to answer any questions regarding Angels and Demons in a very simplistic and straightforward manner, thus the short paragraphs and lack of Bible verses.

But on the note of Christians concerning themselves with Angels... Well, we have to. Not just in manner of small thought or the occasional inquiry but as a tenet of what we believe. Questions like who they are and what they do are important since they lead to larger questions like why does God need them or does God work directly or indirectly on Earth? The Angels help us understand our God not just as a person but as a king, worker, and knowledge- giver.

No idea will remain unchanged over time. Satan is a mashup now, and there's not exactly any "right" way to explain what he is. It's vague in the start of the Bible and almost as vague at the end.

Satan is vague in the beginning of the Bible because he didn't exist there. Satan wasn't an entity until after the Babylonian exile, when the Persians conquered Babylon and released the Jews. Zoroastrianism became an influence in the Jewish faith, thus an evil entity, our Satan, was born. Some Old Testament writings that were written close to that time refer to this belief when they state that their is only one God. However, the concept of Satan grew as time went on through writings such as the Book of Enoch, the spreading influence of Gnosticism, and miseducations on the part of the Church during the Middle ages.

The character is just an all-purpose enemy, or an allegory for the fact people have the ability to do bad things and some character like it exists in nearly all religions, because it's a common trait in people to want to personify sin as something non-human and outside of us but that wants to 'infect' us.

Ah, but that's what made the Jewish faith unique among most religions since the early Jews strictly appointed Sin to man. It can also be said the same point of view existed in the New Testament however that is usually argued against as the majority of Christians believe that demons and Satan are also causes of sin.

It is a core tenent of Christian belief that Satan is real, Satan rebelled and was punished for that, along with its fellow conspirators; and the only way to be saved from Satan is to believe in Jesus. That is what Christianity is about, and to say that Satan is merely a symbol is ignoring the many, many people who base their faith around Jesus' sacrifice saving them from joining Satan in hell.

If you think their belief in that is wrong, then clearly those Christians must also have misconceptions about the Bible.

Actually, you would be amazed at how much of a running streak Christians have had with misconceptions about the Bible. The Gnostics, who were Christian, thought that there were two gods (The Apostles worked vigorously to battle these guys). The Catholic Church believed that Limbo and Purgatory were canonical, that the Sabbath was on Sunday, among other things, the Mormons think Eden was in America, Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, and those guys at Westboro think God hates people.

So, no, I am not ignoring anyone but, yes, I am saying that they are wrong. I have enough logical and biblical proof to say so.

No one is wrong because it is their belief and their interpretation of what happened. If they want to believe that Satan is more than a symbol, then who are we to say they are ill informed or have misconceptions? Each to their own I say.

This is a really personal issue to me. Subjectivism shouldn't exist in Biblical scripture and, thus, neither in doctrine. To allow it and even promote it is to create conflict within the Church which has happened and continues to happen even today.

Case in point; we can probably stop with that "Go forth and multiply" business. I mean...that was written in a time when the population of the Earth was no where near what it is today, and today we have an overpopulation problem :tongue:

Actually no, that's a commandment that has multiple levels of meaning depending on the scale of "multiplication" you want to choose. For example, it could mean "Go forth and have a family" or "Go forth and extend across the universe". It also acts a promise since God's promise to Abraham would essentially demand that Abraham "go forth and multiply". As far as it stands today, we just have to be smart with how we do it. That means teens need to stop making babies and planned parenting needs to be promoted. It also means we need more efficient ways to construct and redesign buildings to create more room and, also, work on inhabiting some of those new planets we found. If push comes to shave, as grim as this is going to sound, we do have diseases, war, lack of resources, natural disasters, and murders to take us out (so, yeah, we just need to pray/cross our fingers that we'll make advancements before it gets to that point).

B
It really bugs me when people say their fertility and amount of children they produce is god's doing or the Bible told them to do it.

Actually, their beliefs aren't totally unfounded. Having lots of kids was seen as a sign of success and still viewed as such in some cultures today. So, if they say "it's God's doing", they are probably saying that God is blessing them or he has some plan which includes them having kids.

Those people need to take some responsibility for their own actions instead of being passive and thinking god will make everything alright.

Taking responsibility is actually the opposite of what you want to tell a Christian, in fact it can be spiritually harmful. Acknowledging that God gives success and takes it away is supposed to help the Christian work towards a higher work ethic to stay in his good graces. However, this can also yield a "go with the flow" (which isn't particularly harmful) or, worse, "its not my fault" mentality. Those who fall in the latter category often see God making their lives successful in the future which opens them up for disappointment when it doesn't happen.

I have more of a problem that the passage is the entire reason for Catholicism's idiotic stance on safe sex, where a condom prevents pregnancy, so therefore it is against God's will.

Should it also be noted that masturbation was also seen as against God?

 

[TWOxACROSS]

If you list the contradictions, I can explain them.

Forgive me that I don't. Many of my past discussions with you gave me the impression that you debate as if your stance is wholly correct, and I honestly don't have the want or time to get into something like this.

 

[Angel]

@Railazel - I think you are under the misconception that I am attacking you? Or dismissing you due to your age? I did not quote your post because I was not referring specifically to it (not until the angel bit anyway). It tends to be a very common practise for some people regardless of faith to take religous texts at face value and I was suggesting the error in doing so, as the bible is both simple and complex at the same time. I wasn't implying you know nothing.

I should clarify where angels and demons etc are concerned - I meant that to place the consideration and contemplation of these things ABOVE that of God Himself is detrimental and serves no conducive purpose to the Christian faith. It could easily become an idol if pursued at length.

Whilst I may not agree with some of the things you are saying, I not calling you out or trying to patronise you

 

[Railazel]

Many of my past discussions with you gave me the impression that you debate as if your stance is wholly correct, and I honestly don't have the want or time to get into something like this.

I take offense to this. If I believe that what I say is altogether right, I wouldn't waste time in debating. I debate because I either see error in someone else's view and wish to correct or understand it or to defend my own view if someone finds error in it. If I fail to do so, my view changes accordingly. Furthermore, I find it quite insulting that you say that my view is wrong, say that there's proof saying so, and not giving me the ability to defend my case. You might as well have not mentioned it at all if you had no intention of going any further with that. It gives the impression that doing so is beneath you and I don't appreciate that. If you don't want to, that's fine, do what you have to if you don't have the time, but please don't insult me like that.

I did not quote your post because I was not referring specifically to it (not until the angel bit anyway). I wasn't implying you know nothing.

Ah, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

@Railazel - I think you are under the misconception that I am attacking you? Or dismissing you due to your age? I
Whilst I may not agree with some of the things you are saying, I not calling you out or trying to patronise you

Actually, I wasn't under that impression. The "twenty year old" bit was in reference to how my criticism of the Church would be disregarded due to my youth. It wasn't a statement towards you. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Angel]

Ah, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.



Actually, I wasn't under that impression. The "twenty year old" bit was in reference to how my criticism of the Church would be disregarded due to my youth. It wasn't a statement towards you. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Good old text, eh? Makes it hard to fully represent one's intentions. Glad we were both misunderstanding each other and it wasn't anything more

 

[TWOxACROSS]

I take offense to this. If I believe that what I say is altogether right, I wouldn't waste time in debating.

If you truly believed that, then you probably wouldn't have so arduously fought tooth and nail several things regarding physics in DmC/DMC. You argued at length for several pages with me and my physicist friend by proxy who had been following the conversation, who was very succinctly telling me that it sounded like you knew little of the physics you were actually talking about. You had your own set of parameters for everything and anyone who argued with you had to follow those set parameters.

Sorry you feel insulted, but the way you say things really doesn't ever make it sound like you're receptive to the other side. Even your opening statement is very accusatory in a "this is what I know and it's right" sorta way.

And honestly, pardon me if I don't accept you as the guy who knows perfectly well exactly what the Bible is talking about when even entire groups of people who read from the same book don't even interpret it the same way, even scholars who have spent half-decades doing so.

The one most correct in this thread ends up being the ironically usernamed Angel :tongue:

 

[Railazel]

Good old text, eh? Makes it hard to fully represent one's intentions. Glad we were both misunderstanding each other and it wasn't anything more

I know, right? Good thing we're both patient.

If you truly believed that, then you probably wouldn't have so arduously fought tooth and nail several things regarding physics in DmC/DMC. You argued at length for several pages with me and my physicist friend by proxy who had been following the conversation, who was very succinctly telling me that it sounded like you knew little of the physics you were actually talking about.

Because your physicist friend and I have probably read at least the same amount of material saying the same things. Everything he said, I already knew and I told you that in that same thread. If he feels that I knew nothing, then he was simply wrong for assuming so.

You had your own set of parameters for everything and anyone who argued with you had to follow those set parameters.

Sorry you feel insulted, but the way you say things really doesn't ever make it sound like you're receptive to the other side.

You're not the first person to say that but I've always made it a point that if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll declare that I'm wrong. If you feel otherwise, then I apologize.

Even your opening statement is very accusatory in a "this is what I know and it's right" sorta way.

Because I want to make certain that my view is trustworthy and I have to write it as such. If I intended to portray it as just another view, I would have said so.

And honestly, pardon me if I don't accept you as the guy who knows perfectly well exactly what the Bible is talking about when even entire groups of people who read from the same book don't even interpret it the same way, even scholars who have spent half-decades doing so.

Actually, scholarly opinions tend to be diverse and entire groups of people can be wrong. Just because I disagree with a bunch of people shouldn't demerit my view. You should challenge it on a more logical basis than that.

The one most correct in this thread ends up being the ironically usernamed Angel :tongue:

Ironically? Uh... Duh! Angel's an angel. Everybody knows that. Of course (s)he's the most correct.

 

[Loopy]

You don't think I know that? I'm Christian and I was raised with that very same belief. However, I never really understood it as a child and, as I got older, it made less sense to me. After doing some research, I came to the realization that the Old Testament writers didn't believe in an entity of evil and I simply adopted that view.

Fair enough, but there are a lot of Christians who do believe that there is an physical Satan who controls evil forces in this world. All I was pointing out was that a lot of people have views that are contradictory to yours.

But "going to Hell" is a part of teaching those morals. While I don't like how churches portray Damnation and Hell, the fact remains that if you do wrong, you get punished- either in this life or the next.

I believe that you shouldn't have to scare people into being decent, moral people. I also don't think hell is some kind of burning torture, something from Dante....which I suspect is where the church adopted that idea from. I'd rather think of hell as an absence of god's grace or some kind of distance from god. That's what I think, and that's that.

Then again, who is going to listen to a twenty- year old?

Plenty will, so long as you bear in mind that older people do often hold the view of 'they're just a child who knows nothing' or 'been there done that'. But also bear in mind that you do not know everything, no one does, but there will be people alive longer who have studied and know more; and that people will sometimes disagree with you, no matter how much you argue your point. It is just how life is.
Take each discussion as a learning experience, a chance to grow, and not one to win an argument or ram opinions at people.

This is a really personal issue to me. Subjectivism shouldn't exist in Biblical scripture and, thus, neither in doctrine. To allow it and even promote it is to create conflict within the Church which has happened and continues to happen even today.

But it does exist, and that is why there are so many denominations of Christianity, and other religions. Humans can't agree on even the basics of religion, so they form their own groups, their own religions and divide themselves. It's not surprising really.
Christianity was seen as nothing more than a cult back in the time of the Roman pantheon worship, and now look at it, all because people decided to be subjective and decide to believe what they wanted.

Actually no, that's a commandment that has multiple levels of meaning depending on the scale of "multiplication" you want to choose. For example, it could mean "Go forth and have a family" or "Go forth and extend across the universe".

Isn't that being subjective? Surely there should only be one meaning to that commandment, the popular one about having as many children as possible in accordance with the practicality of the time being to increase the small population.

Taking responsibility is actually the opposite of what you want to tell a Christian, in fact it can be spiritually harmful. Acknowledging that God gives success and takes it away is supposed to help the Christian work towards a higher work ethic to stay in his good graces. However, this can also yield a "go with the flow" (which isn't particularly harmful) or, worse, "its not my fault" mentality. Those who fall in the latter category often see God making their lives successful in the future which opens them up for disappointment when it doesn't happen.

However, your assertion runs counter to the idea that God created humans with free will. What was the point of that if god wanted people to just submit? That's a pretty twisted logic other wise. So, have free will, but you can only use it to submit to god.
Surely people should practice their own free will responsibly within the guidelines and commandments outlined by their church in order to live a good and moral life. It is far better than to just do nothing and think god will provide, even if they do nothing and set no goals for themselves.

Because I want to make certain that my view is trustworthy and I have to write it as such. If I intended to portray it as just another view, I would have said so.

But that's the point. Yours is another view amongst billions in the world. It's is no more or no less trusted than the next person, or someone who is actually a biblical scholar, and even they have differing interpretations on how the bible should be understood. No one view is right or wrong, and that includes yours.

Should it also be noted that masturbation was also seen as against God?

We know, and yet look how many do it. They also don't wash themselves either as stated to do in Leviticus.

Jesus was a Jew, he didn't eat pork, yet Christians do. Back in the day, I can see the practicality of that....however, I'm a pescatarian anyway, so I'm sure I'll evade hell by pork if that even exists. :tongue:

It says women can't wear clothes like men, but we do.

Things change. Back in the day, those things would've meant instant hell or some other punishment, but these days, it just depends on which church you attend. It seems like men make the rules these days, not god.

As a side, I'm now thinking about the group of Christians who believe in original sin.
So, if babies are automatically going to hell from the moment of birth, what is the point in having children if one believes in original sin?
One is not only gambling with one's own salvation, but the salivation of someone who does not yet exist, who would never have had to get out of original sin had their parents not procreated. After all, one can't give original sin to something that does not exist.
This also makes me wonder: if god is omniscient, then god knows who will avoid instant hell brought about by original sin and who won't, even before that person is born. It's an odd thought...