The logic of 'Hell' and 'free-will'

[Black Dagger]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/blackandred/a1.jpg

I found this idea very intriguing. Why would the 'devil'/'satan' (of christian superstition) do the will of 'god? 'God' desires humans who disobey 'gods will' to be punished, 'sinners' are 'damned to burn in hell-fire'. But why? Surely any 'devil' that may exist, would reward such behaviour (as the cartoon suggests)? The 'devil' after all, is the great 'tempter' and orchestrator of christian theology. It would be logical to assume that 'hell' would be a place of 'sin', that is a place where actions and ideas opposed to 'god' would be actively encouraged, where they would flourish.

However, if the 'devil' really ran 'hell' like is assumed in this paradigm, would that not be a subversion of 'gods' authority? Surely an 'all-powerful', 'all-knowing', 'all-encompassing' entity such as the christian 'god' would have the power to control everything, including the actions of the 'devil' and the conditions of 'hell'? More to the point, why doesn't 'god' just elminate 'hell' and the 'devil' altogether? Well the answer to that question is easy, that would remove any incentive to 'obey', and if there's one thing 'god' can't stand, it's disobedience, the bible after all- is riddled with bloody genocides and murders by 'god' of 'his' disobedient creations.

Moreover, the role asserted of 'god' in christian theology, as far as can be extrapolated from the bible and modern rhetoric, is that 'he' stays out the 'devil's' dealings, and 'hell' itself. In christian theology, 'hell' is the abode of the 'devi'l and the 'him' alone, ok, but why then would the 'he' do 'gods' work? The 'prince of darkness' has no personal interest/stake in punishing 'sinners'- at least, if theology is to be applied logically, 'he' should not. As a proponent of 'earthly' sin, it would illogical for the 'devil' then to 'punish' such acts in 'hell', effectively carrying out 'gods work'/'gods will'. I have a feeling a 'believer' may assert that this would illustrate the 'truly evil' nature of the 'devil', ie. that 'he' would punish sinners, despite encouraging them to be sinful ('temptation' etc), but such an assertion undermines the role of the 'devil' as a force of opposition, an enemy of 'god'. If the 'devil' was to 'punish' the 'sinners' than broadly speaking, 'he' would be an ally of 'god- not an enemy, a contradiction to christian theology.

The practical role of 'hell' and the 'devil' in christian theology is to coerce 'believers', to manufacture obedience to 'gods authority' and 'power', because if one does not 'obey', then 'hell'-an eternity of pain and suffering- awaits. However as illustrated above, this is not logical. 'Hell' if it existed as such, should be a place merely where 'sin' and 'sinners', be they single-mothers, adulterers, murderers, LGBTT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transsexual, transgender) peoples, abortionists, atheists, communists, 'pagans' and all non-christians alike, 'live for eternity'- and perhaps even where they are actively 'rewarded' by the 'devil (why not?)'- where they can 'enjoy' the 'fruits' of their 'sin' in abundance with other 'sinners'. Given the alternative, i think i'd prefer 'hell', an eternity in a 'heaven' of puritanical christians, the personification of sexual and individual repression, is not in the least bit appealing. Is it me, or does 'hell' sound much like 'real-life', and heaven, very much like a christian theocracy?

And anyway, why does 'god' punish humans for exercising the 'free-will' 'he' has given them? Surely that is a contradiction? 'Free-will' is an idea used frequently by christians to explain why 'bad things happen to good people' (despite the fact that the bible makes it quite clear that for example 'natural disasters' are 'punishment' for 'sin', sorry Southern Asia, you 'paid for sin'), but how can humans really have 'free-will' if 'god' enforces restrictions on our behaviour? (and to be clear, it's not just 'sins' like murder, but saving the life of mothers by an abortion, even using contraception or touching a woman during menstruation)

Not only does the 'god' of the christian bible actively intervene in our lives, well at least, 'he' did overtly hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ago. Not in the 'modern' era for some bizarre reason- science? education? Is 'god' afraid of being subject to reasoned and thorough criticism? But anyway, not only does 'god' intervene in order to directly punish humanity, in many cases involving the killing of alledged 'sinners', but more than that, we're even subject to punishment after-death.

How is that meaningful system of 'free-will'? Our actions, and desires, our will, is constrained by all-encompassing- yet obfuscatory- 'rules' and obligations, riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, but as outlined by 'our' infalliable 'god'. And further still, we shall be 'judged' and potentially punished for eternity, based on whether we 'obey' 'god', that is, whether or not we do what 'he' says we should do with our 'freedom'. Is it just me, or does that sound more like subservience than 'freedom'?

Another idea, why is it 'wrong' to assume that if there was a 'god', that it would not reward people for using the brains and free will they were 'given', and critically examine, and even reject the 'supernatural'/'god'? After all, there is no evidence for the supernatural, religious belief is based on 'faith', that is- nothing, why would 'god' reward the gullible? The ignorant? The conformist? This is of course ignoring the gross hypocrisy and atrocity perpetuated by 'gods' representatives on earth (religious institutions/hierarchy/clergy/'believers'), why would 'god' love such people?

The problem with that proposition is, the 'will of god' elucidated so poorly in the Christian bible is so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies that practically any action can be divinely sanctioned using 'gods words'. From an opposition to miscegenation, a call for the murder of same-sex couples, inter-racial couples, gay peoples and abortionists, to the pursuit of racial apocalypse or 'racial purification'- the murder of all 'Jews and all non-whites' (see: the Christian patriot movement in the US), to unprovoked military invasions, indiscriminate 'total war', slavery, and a whole manner of oppression, sexual, gender, class and otherwise.

If a 'god' existed in a Judeo-Christian sense, it would be hypocritical for it to punish ANYONE. Least of all because of 'gods' own violation of 'his' rules. If 'god' 'loves' his enemies' (like 'jesus'), why does he so ruthlessly smite/punish/murder them? Is 'god' above consistency? How can 'god' be infallible and inconsistent at the same time? Then again, i suppose is above the rules and 'values' that 'he' imposes on humanity?

The fact that a 'god' has left no credible evidence of it's existence, nor of the validity of any texts or dogma credited to it's word or will, means that billions of people could and probably are 'disobeying' the 'will of god', but in complete ignorance, that is-through no real fault of their own, the nebulous nature of religion can be and is a 'valid' excuse for any 'wrong-doing'. And a 'god' who punished people for not blindly submitting to the illogical and baseless posturing of religious 'belief-systems', is as hypocritical as one who punishes anyone for disobeying or misinterpreting the obfuscatory nature of 'gods' will' or rules.

Conclusion? 'God' is irrelevant (not in the sense that religion should be ignored, but 'god' as a 'real' deity/super-being/whatever), or if 'god' follows any kind of consistent logic, no one should or deserves to be punished in any possible 'after-life' for their actions in our present reality, to do so would be cruel. That said, cruelty is a trait clearly evident in the 'god' of Semitic tradition, so if that form of 'god' existed, logic and continuity would not be required of it (and is clearly not required in the rhetoric and doctrine of it's believers in any case). And in fact, it would be logical for such a 'god' to BE cruel and to ruthlessly punish 'sinners', just as the genocidal deity of the old testament did without hesitation. In which case, 'god' is still irrelevant, because the vast majority if not all of us would be 'disobeying' 'gods will'-most likely out of ignorance, regardless of our actions, we're imperfect 'believers' or atheists.
If 'hell' existed, i imagine it would be a very crowded place..


"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder." -Homer Simpson

[Black Dagger]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?- At all? :)

[TheKingOfMercy]

The theologian St Augustine wrote a theodicy linking the problem of evil and free will.

His basic argument was that free will was taken from Eden, in violation of God's orders. Thus was the original sin perpetrated, Thus creating total free will, thus creating the possibilty for evil.

Augustine states that God allows evil to exist simply as punishment for this sin, and hell is simply where all people, as we were seminally present in Adam, are destined to go. To show that he isnt totally unmerciful, he sent Jesus Christ to save the worthy souls through his love.

God would not destroy hell as it would mean humanity would go unpunished for this original sin. This shows how God is all powerfull, as with the metaphorical flick of a switch, he could 'save' everyone, bring them into his 'light', but decides that, in some odd masochistic way, we all need punishing.

Thus God does not punish us for excersizing free-will, but for taking it and creating evil in the first place.

To quote Pope John Paul II - "Hell is not a physical place, it is simply the existence of a soul without the light of God"

The devil would still be seen as an enemy of god, as he is the fallen angel, one who tried to subvert God's power, and was so cast down in Genesis. His punishing of sinners is seen by some as either a sop to God, or some kind of punishment - he, in his realm, is sent the cast-offs of humanity, and is basically humiliated by this, and takes it all out on the apparent sinners.

[Capital Punishment]

Well Dagger, we can agree on something. I never liked the Church and it's forceable ways shown throughout history. You have a very good point actually. I am agnostic myself, so i have always wondered why the great and all powerful christian god lets all the violence and horror go on in this world. I find it very disturbing how so many people blindly believed this faith for so many centuries now.

I also have noticed so many loopholes and mistakes there are in Christianity. Of course, being the powerful global force it is, the church just bullshits some idiotic excuse that a normal human being was not made to believe. Yet the countless followers would dare not defy jesus.

It's very sad that a good person who has done nothing but good for people all his life would be sent to hell for not believing in god. But a serial murderer can repent his sins and go to heaven. That is just plain stupid.

[Black Dagger]

Thus was the original sin perpetrated, Thus creating total free will, thus creating the possibilty for evil.

My point is that how can humanity be considered to have 'free-will' when 'god' still defines the only 'acceptable' behaviour? In reality we cannot exercise truly 'free will', because we if do so 'god' may punish us. To avoid this we are thus coerced in to restricting our own 'free' will- negating its 'freedom'. In this sense, we do not have 'free-will' but a fixed christian 'morality', we can do whatever we want- only as long as it doesnt 'offend' 'god'- that is not real free will- because we are only 'free' to obey 'god'. If we do not use our 'free will' to obey 'god'- we are punished for eternity. That is hypocritical.


God would not destroy hell as it would mean humanity would go unpunished for this original sin.

So 'god' is not forgiving? How is it just for 'god'- to punish all of humanity, for eternity- for the actions of two individuals at the 'dawn of time'? In this paradigm 'god' is not only unjust, but unforgiving and spiteful- yet 'he' is 'meant' to be the opposite.



This shows how God is all powerfull, as with the metaphorical flick of a switch, he could 'save' everyone, bring them into his 'light', but decides that, in some odd masochistic way, we all need punishing.

Except 'god' is not accepted as being masochistic in christianity, 'god' is meant to be love- this somehow despite stubbornly marking humanity for eternal punishment based on the actions of two individuals. 'God' creates two humans, who are not perfect, gives them 'free-will', then punishes them for exercising it imperfectly- in the pursuit of knowledge of all absurd 'sins'. This same pattern is then applied to humanity. 'Free will' is apparently given, and then we are punished eternally for exercising it- a punishment rooted in 'gods' own petty and spiteful nature- refusing to forgive or show compassion (as 'god' commands humanity to show no less)- for a 'sin' committed not by you or me, but two imperfect human beings at the 'beginning' of time.



Thus God does not punish us for excersizing free-will, but for taking it and creating evil in the first place.

Not true. You say 'god' 'does not punish us for excersizing free-will'- but for "taking it and creating evil in the first place"'- that means punishment for exercising it. The 'first' humans took that 'free-will' and used it, the product is irrelevant- they were using what 'god' had given them- and they (and for some inane reason every human for eternity) were punished for it. 'God' is punishing them for exercising 'free-will'. The mistake they made was not using the 'gift' of 'free-will' to obey 'god'- the same contradiction that binds christian teaching on 'free-will' to this day.



To quote Pope John Paul II - "Hell is not a physical place, it is simply the existence of a soul without the light of God"

Some christians do conceive 'hell' as a physical place though (particularly in 'charismatic' churches). 'Hell' is not also depicted as a physical place in biblical text?



His punishing of sinners is seen by some as either a sop to God,

Why would 'he' bother? 'Satans' punishment is eternal is it not? Moreover, 'he' is portrayed as evil incarnate, the 'prince of darkness'- the value-opposite of 'god'. It would not be logically consistent with his character to 'sop' to 'god'- nor would 'sopping' change 'his' condition- something i'm sure 'satan' would be aware of- so why would 'he' do it? It makes no sense.



or some kind of punishment - he, in his realm, is sent the cast-offs of humanity, and is basically humiliated by this, and takes it all out on the apparent sinners.

Except 'satan' loves 'sin', he wants to create 'sin' on earth, and actively 'tempts' humanity to this end. Thus he cannot be logically be ashamed of the 'sin' of others- 'he' wants to subvert 'good'/'god'- 'he' wants people to 'sin'. Thus when people do commit 'sin' and are sent by 'god' to 'hell' this is his 'mission accomplished', hardly a humiliation, it is a victory! It would make sense in turn if 'hell' was a place where 'sin' flourished, as a further affront to 'god'.

[LSD]

Obviously the idea of a devil who loves sin but hates sinners is logically inconsistent, which is why serious Christians don't even bother with it.

They, instead, that far from running "Hell", the devil is actually imprisoned there and is tormented himself for his numerous "sins".

Look at, say, Dante's inferno in which Satan is portrayed as frozen in ice at the bottom of Hell.

The Devil runs Hell line is a relatively late addition. Started because Christians needed a way to "excuse" God for the horrors that were supposedly committed in Hell.

[TheKingOfMercy]

Dagger - you either missed or ignored that bit which said that Augustine supposed we are all due for punishment because we were all seminally present in Adam.

This is christian theology btw, not mine, just thought i'd make sure you know that.

another train of though, written by Irenaeus, says that we are free to excersize our free will, all we like, even in disobediance of God, as humanity can never become the perfect thing that God wants by being told what to do.

Irenaeus says that evil exists because God allows it to, as if he stopped it, it would prevent us having total free will, meaning that humanity could never become truly perfect. He says that eventually humanity will overcome evil, and then attain all the heavenly perfection that was initially intended for us.

Untill then, some will overcome the need to evil, some wont, and he ascribes heaven as the metaphorical sorting house. Those who have lived good lives (in whichever morality I presume), will be able to join the perfect renditions of humankind. He doesn't, to my knowledge, describe what happens to those who havent, but I have a feeling it wouldnt be hell, probably more of a limbo/purgatory thing.

[Clarksist]

Look at, say, Dante's inferno in which Satan is portrayed as frozen in ice at the bottom of Hell.


You do know that Dante's Inferno is not part of scripture, right? (just making sure.)

The Devil could not possibly be a tormenter of sinners without doing God's work, but the Devil is the opposite of God. So the Devil would have to let all sinners live in ecstasy to defy God. But God could then destroy hell because the Devil would not be following God's will. But then the Devil is either defying God's will, or doing what God wants, but in defying God he isn't going along with what Christianity tells us.

Holy fucking shit its obvious that its all a crock of shit. No way around it. I've put this in the face of many Christians. All they say is, "Look at the trees, and there is your proof of god."

[LSD]

You do know that Dante's Inferno is not part of scripture, right?

Of course it isn't.

I was just using it as a relevent example of midieval Christian thinking on the nature of "Hell".

"Scripture" does a very bad job of explaining what "Hell" is. Basically, all that we get from it is that "Hell" is bad...and we wouildn't want to go there.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Very good read. It makes a point and shows alot of contradictins in the christian teachings.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 02:57 PM

You do know that Dante's Inferno is not part of scripture, right?

Of course it isn't.

I was just using it as a relevent example of midieval Christian thinking on the nature of "Hell".

"Scripture" does a very bad job of explaining what "Hell" is. Basically, all that we get from it is that "Hell" is bad...and we wouildn't want to go there.
True; I have a certain perception of hell form my time as a theist.

Apparently hell is a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Essentially hell is a place of suffering and sorrow, where the "doors" will be closed forever on Satan and his followers (angels and humans alike) after the whole apocalypse escapade.

I've been toll that hell is the place where god doesn't dwell; this following the idea that god is "in all things" and so to be devoid of god it to be spiritually "bankrupt," and as god is "the good in all things." This means people are unfulfilled forever or whatever.

That being said; god has never brought me any happiness and we are doing just fine with the separation... I just wish I could get a restraining order :D

I don't know how much of this is pure abstraction and misrepresentation on the part of those that railroaded me into religion... you basically get the end of dogmatism and mystification anyway.

[Anarchist Freedom]

One thing though. Satan has never actually been to hell. He is around us right now so god says. He wont go there till the apocalypse where he will be destroyed in the lake of fire. So actually satan isnt meant to punish us for our sins. Hell is just a place sinners will go to for eternity and live a life without god in servitude and pain.

[LSD]

One thing though. Satan has never actually been to hell. He is around us right now so god says.

That's one "theory", yes.

Some have interpreted Revelations to mean that 3½ years before the end of "Daniel’s 7th Week", at the start of the "Great Tribulation", Satan will be "bound in the Abyss" for a 1000 years and then thrown into the Lake of fire.

But that model is not universally accepted by Christian theologians.

[Clarksist]

But that model is not universally accepted by Christian theologians.


I think Chrisitians just blindfold themselves, take a highlighter, and go through pages of the bible. And whatever is highlighted, everyone believes in or... else.

I'm serious. Its like how the first testament is supposodely not supposed to be followed, yet they believe being gay is a sin. Although, many christians love themselves some pork.

Fucking hypocrits.

[LSD]

I'm serious. Its like how the first testament is supposodely not supposed to be followed, yet they believe being gay is a sin.

That's because biblical anti-homosexual rants continue in the New Testament.

In fact the New Testament is arguable more homophobic than the Old because, unlike the Old, the New Testament specifically condemns lesbians along with male homosexuals.

So-called "liberal" Christians try to make the case that somehow all the "bad" stuff is in the Old Testament and that Christian teachings are not discriminatory.

It's complete and pure bullshit.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2005, 12:17 PM
'Free will' is apparently given, and then we are punished eternally for exercising it- a punishment rooted in 'gods' own petty and spiteful nature- refusing to forgive or show compassion (as 'god' commands humanity to show no less)- for a 'sin' committed not by you or me, but two imperfect human beings at the 'beginning' of time.

Exactly. I never understood that. Why should I pay for somebody else's sin? For my own, well, fine, suppose. But for Adam's and Eve's? WTF? And as far as I remember, sins don't just appear, they all result from that original sin. Why should I repent of sin that was imposed? And for that I'm doomed to go to hell? :angry:



If 'hell' existed, i imagine it would be a very crowded place..
Yes, you and me, and about 99% of this board. We'll make a party. Or revolution. Both I guess. :P

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:02 AM
Exactly. I never understood that. Why should I pay for somebody else's sin? For my own, well, fine, suppose. But for Adam's and Eve's? WTF? And as far as I remember, sins don't just appear, they all result from that original sin. Why should I repent of sin that was imposed? And for that I'm doomed to go to hell? :angry:
I do believe it says in the bible that god is a jealous god, punishing children for the sins of their fathers or something to that affect.

All I have to say is fuck anyone that condones inane (or any!) child abuse (any abuse!) and fuck their idea of god. These are the kind of people I would pray burned in hell, if I still prayed.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Jul 16 2005, 12:22 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Jul 16 2005, 12:22 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 02:02 AM
Exactly. I never understood that. Why should I pay for somebody else's sin? For my own, well, fine, suppose. But for Adam's and Eve's? WTF? And as far as I remember, sins don't just appear, they all result from that original sin. Why should I repent of sin that was imposed? And for that I'm doomed to go to hell? :angry:
I do believe it says in the bible that god is a jealous god, punishing children for the sins of their fathers or something to that affect.

[/b]
It gives me the feeling of "son/daughter of enemy of the people(state)" that was so widely spread in the USSR. <_<

[Sirion]

To understand the devil, we must understand why he was created. The concept is undoubtly older, but the first known reference to me as devils as people with a tail and horns were in ancient roman encyclopedias, as pictures showing the people that lived in the outer regions and outside of the roman empire. It certainly had its political agenda; these people were evil, so to uphold the roman empire and the standard of living they had achieved, those peoples needed to be oppressed (sounds familiar?). Roman religion had no concept of Hell as far as I know, and while the greeks

If you look at early judaism, the devil does not exist in the christian form. There is references to gods like "Baal", which later became pseudonyms for the devil. The concept of the devil as an evil counterpart to the good God(s) are most likely taken from the egyptian god of death, Seth (thus explaining the name Satan). In the early days of christianity, there was a large egyptian christian church, called the coptic church. The african christian churches more or less disappeared during the arab conquest in the early middle age, with the exception of the ethiopian orthodox church. Now, I don&#39;t know about this, but I see it very likely that judaism and egyptian religion may have mingled together around the time of the historical Jesus&#39; birth, as the whole middel eastern region was then a part of the roman empire, because if I remember right, Jesus talks about an empire of death, where the non-believers go.

Now, I believe much changed with the roman adaption of christianity. The main reason for this was that christianity was expanding so fast, that it threatened the empire. Therefore, christianity was adopted, and made a part of the roman empiral machine. Through making the will of the empire the will of the church, you could get the loyality of the christian population, thus decreasing the risk of riots.

With the fall of the roman empire, Western Europe lost any form of large scale governing for some time. However, the church remained in Rome, and without the roman empire, it got a will of it&#39;s own. Through alliances with warlords on the rise, most noteably Charlemagne, and therefore later the institiution also got a strategical position in the feudal systems in Europe.

The word Hell was first used by Martin Luther. It is borrowed from norse mythology, where Hel is the queen of the underworld Niflheim.

Just some thoughs from me on the origin of Hell and Satan, their origin and political function. For more information, look at Hell on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

[Black Dagger]

Now, I don&#39;t know about this, but I see it very likely that judaism and egyptian religion may have mingled together around the time of the historical Jesus&#39; birth...

Who? What proof is there of &#39;historical jesus&#39;? There are no primary historical accounts, of roman, egyptian, greek, persian etc. historians. The only &#39;proof&#39; of this alledged figure is in the retrospectives of christian historians- that is not good enough.

[praxis1966]

His basic argument was that free will was taken from Eden, in violation of God&#39;s orders. Thus was the original sin perpetrated, Thus creating total free will, thus creating the possibilty for evil.
I&#39;m surprised no one has yet pointed out the most obvious hole in this logic. If in fact man usurped the power of free will, ie self-determination, from God, that would place him at equal footing with God. In this eventuality, man is equally as powerfull as God, making such a God unworthy of worship. You might as well worship man and the products of free will, they are equal to God.

Roman religion had no concept of Hell as far as I know, and while the greeks
This is quite wrong. In Greco-Roman mythology (the two are basically the same with the names changed) everyone went to Hades after death. Hades was divided into two sections: Elysian Fields and Tarturus. The Elysian Fields were the mythological equivalent of Heaven, and Tarturus was the equivalent of Hell. Hades/Pluto was normally depicted with two faces, one ugly and twisted, the other handsome. If you got the handsome face, you ended up in Elysian Fields. If you got the other, it was off to Tarturus to help Sisyphus push boulders with you.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:20 PM

Roman religion had no concept of Hell as far as I know, and while the greeks
This is quite wrong. In Greco-Roman mythology (the two are basically the same with the names changed) everyone went to Hades after death. Hades was divided into two sections: Elysian Fields and Tarturus. The Elysian Fields were the mythological equivalent of Heaven, and Tarturus was the equivalent of Hell. Hades/Pluto was normally depicted with two faces, one ugly and twisted, the other handsome. If you got the handsome face, you ended up in Elysian Fields. If you got the other, it was off to Tarturus to help Sisyphus push boulders with you.
Bah; I was going to bring up this point... oh well.

So this really begs the question of where the Greek god&#39;s concept came from; likely not the Titans as the mythology claims...

Maybe origins in a more nature oriented religion?

[praxis1966]

That&#39;s the most probable theory. I&#39;d say that it probably migrated up from animist Africa, into Mesopotamia, and then westward into Southern Europe, evolving along the along the way. There is, however, question as to whether or not the religion migrated southward, evolving out of the primitive religions of Central and Northern Europe. There have also been arguments back and forth about whether or not the Mesopotamian religions (recall The Epic of Gilgamesh) were original or not. It&#39;s really impossible to say, and most of the documentaries I&#39;ve seen on the matter largely deal with conjecture.

[dietrite]

I found the original post fairly boring and obvious, but also ignorant of most of christian linkings with archetypes in mythology.