Is Christianity a Dualistic Religion?

[dervisolvski]

Hello. As you can read on the title, I was wondering whether Christianity is a dualistic religion or not. I wanted to mention that because I’ve read a book called “Zoroastrianism” and the content intrigued me. However, I found it unreal and false. I already have some opinions about it and I think Christianity is definitely not a dualistic religion after all I witnessed in it. What are your thoughts about this topic?

Peace.

 

[Vico]

Hello. As you can read on the title, I was wondering whether Christianity is a dualistic religion or not. …

The Holy Trinity created the world ex nihilo.

Catholic Encylopedia

Christianity rejected all forms of a dual origin of the world which erected matter, or evil, or any other principle into a second eternal being coexistent with God, and it taught the monistic origin of the universe from one, infinite, self-existing spiritual Being who freely created all things.
…
The problem of dualism, however, was lifted into quite a new position in modern philosophy by Descartes.
…
The ultra-dualism of Descartes was immediately followed on the Continent by the pantheistic monism of Spinoza, which identified mind and matter in one infinite substance of which they are merely “modes.”

Maher, M. (1909). Dualism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm

 

[fredystairs]

Perhaps it would be good if you defined what you mean by dualistic. I can think of several definitions.

 

[Wesrock]

Christianity is not a dualistic religion. I will be simplistic but dualistic like religions often teach that there is a world of light and a world of darkness at war with each other, and our world is in some way in the middle.

God created everything except himself. He did not bring order to pre-existing chaos. He did not create “good substance” that became mixed with “evil substance.” He created all.

I’ll add I have more knowledge of Manichaeism than Zoroastrianism

 

[CelticWarlord]

What are your thoughts about this topic?

I think many Christians fall into the trap of practicing the faith as “dualism” without being aware of it. I find the topic very well covered in this short video by Father Richard Rohr;

 

[Shakuhachi]

It is Dualistic in the sense that God is treated as other than us humans. This is where Fr Rohr would rather emphasize the Universal Christ present in all creation.

 

[Kaninchen]

As an outsider (who has been around for quite a long time), my observation is that ‘dualism’ and Christians is a bit like ‘idolatry’ and Christians - it all rather depends.

Do some (individual/groups of) Christians worship (get close to worshipping) idols? Do some (individual/groups of) Christians have a (get close to having a) God/Anti-God theology?

Not officially but . . .

Christianity’s ‘gardeners’ ought to do more ‘weeding.’

 

[MNathaniel]

I find the topic very well covered in this short video by Father Richard Rohr

PSA for Catholics to avoid anything produced by Fr. Richard Rohr.

I don’t want to get myself into murky waters with the mods by commenting on a specific individual who is technically (somehow) a Catholic priest… but the following warning about him was publicly issued by Leila Miller last year. Miller who co-authored a book with CA’s own apologist Trent Horn, a book that was endorsed by Cardinal Sarah. So anyway just establishing some barebones credibility of the person warning about this man… and feel free to peruse the following link for more specific reasons for the warning.

Warning: New Ager Fr. Richard Rohr is making a comeback — Leila Miller

 

[Beryllos]

specific reasons for the warning.

Specifically, did you object to anything Fr. Rohr said in this video?

 

[MNathaniel]

Specifically, did you object to anything Fr. Rohr said in this video?

Specifically, I see any video of Fr. Rohr talking, and I’m not going to waste five minutes of my life watching it.

Certainly not a video posted by someone whose self-described religion in their profile reads:

Religion: Non denominational, ex-fundamentalist, outside the box, heretical Catholic enthusiast

Maybe Fr. Rohr did nothing but read straight from the CCC in that video. That’s great if he did.

Nonetheless I’m also going to leave my warning about him up for the public record. Fr. Rohr is not a reliable ‘source’ for people to get comfortable going to for interpretation of Catholic teaching. And even if this video were coincidentally fine, it seems potentially dangerous as a doorway for someone to think his other videos might be reliable as a resource on other topics too.

Not even going into his prudential judgement (nude men’s retreats, etc)… When he’s ready to publicly repent of his illicit intercommunion with the episcopal church, publicly repent of teaching that the gender binary is false and endorsing same-sex ‘marriage’, publicly repent of publicly declaring that there is no hell and God would be evil if there was, etc…

… then maybe I’ll be interested to watch a video of his on some topic.

Until then I’d recommend everyone consult a good source, instead of a bad source, for answers to questions about what the Catholic Church teaches. Fr. Rohr has made it explicitly clear he holds and teaches beliefs that are contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. This makes him a bad source for information on her.

A broken clock may be right twice a day but that doesn’t make it reasonable to look at it when curious for the time.

Seek information on Catholic teaching from someone other than Fr. Rohr. PSA. For anyone reading.

 

[Beryllos]

So you’re the Fr. Rohr police. Not only off-topic but ad hominem as well.

 

[MNathaniel]

So you’re the Fr. Rohr police. Not only off-topic but ad hominem as well.

If his bishop won’t police him, then who will?

Or is your suggestion that no one should?

Or is your suggestion that the words Fr. Rohr has written down and personally published, give faithful Catholics no reason to counsel each other to avoid him?

Bring on the flags and CAF banning if that’s coming. I am honestly losing any sense of what the point of this community is if we’re not allowed to look at an obvious wolf in sheep’s clothing (when someone else brings him up, no less) and say “wolf”.

If that’s really the safety level of this sheepfold I reckon I’ll be safer outside than in, so if kicked out I’ll take my cue.

 

[Beryllos]

Rather than hijack someone else’s thread (or did you have anything to say on topic?), you should create your own thread to alert the community about Fr. Rohr.

 

[MNathaniel]

Rather than hijack someone else’s thread (or did you have anything to say on topic?), you should create your own thread to alert the community about Fr. Rohr.

I actually do agree with you that my posts were off-topic (and I do apologize to the OP for that: I don’t want to hijack his thread and I hope the original topic can resume). I also agree, incidentally, that my criticisms on this thread have an ad hominem nature, since I haven’t watched the original 5-minute video linked, and am advising people to be cautious about listening to the man on the basis of other things he’s said instead.

I only intended to leave my first post (in which I mentioned no specific criticism, just the caution about Fr. Rohr as a source and then a link to more information for those interested). I wouldn’t have expanded on the point if not asked to speak more about it. (Or specifically, asked about what I thought about the specific video, at which point I decided to expand on why I’m choosing not to watch that video.)

I am not out to get Fr. Rohr which is why I’m not interested in setting up a different thread identifying ‘issues’ about him.

The reason I thought (and still think) it appropriate to leave my note about Fr. Rohr as an unreliable source on this thread, was that someone posted a video link of Fr. Rohr on this thread.

In my experience, with many people, video leads to video. Someone who watches this first video (recommended on the reasonably credible site Catholic Answers! albeit CAF, but many people may not understand the distinction) might log Fr. Rohr away as a credible source to consult on other topics. Simply by watching one of his videos, YouTube algorithms might also start to prompt a viewer to watch more of his videos.

I’m honestly not out to get the man and don’t feel comfortable publicly critiquing him (or anyone). Especially when seemingly, his bishop doesn’t.

But I read some of what he writes and teaches (e.g. claiming a theological impossibility of hell coexisting with a good God), and honestly it shakes my faith (because if it were true that there’s ultimately no hell and we all get to heaven in the end, it sure doesn’t matter that I stay Christian now, and my life could be so much easier and more materially prosperous if I wasn’t), and I want as few people exposed to that kind of dangerous theology as possible.

Therefore I’m trying to find a middle ground of not bringing the man up out of the blue on a thread all about him… but yes commenting when he does get brought up as if a credible teacher by others on threads, so that readers can see the warning nearby the recommendation, and at least judge for themselves.

 

[Wesrock]

It seems to me “dualism” is frequently misunderstood in these topics, or that some of the replies are non-sequiturs What’s meant is cosmological dualism, that there is an uncreated source of good and an uncreated source of evil, with the former creating good substances and the latter creating evil substances, and engaged in a cosmic struggle which will be resolved in some end times scenario.

The difference between God and creation, or the way human beings divide concepts, isn’t what is really being referenced.

I’ve noticed this in other threads, too.

From Wikipedia on Zoroastrianism:

According to the Zoroastrian creation myth, Ahura Mazda existed in light and goodness above, while Angra Mainyu existed in darkness and ignorance below. They have existed independently of each other for all time, and manifest contrary substances.

The history of Zoroastrian tradition is a bit muddled. In the last few centuries there have been proposals that Zoroaster intended that Angra Mainyu was a creation of Ahura Mazda that manifested the principle of chaos, but the majority of scholars think dualism the more likely original teaching.

Christianity is monotheistic, not dualistic. All substances are created by God, and God is the only uncreated.

 

[MNathaniel]

It seems to me “dualism” is frequently misunderstood in these topics… What’s meant is cosmological dualism, that there is an uncreated source of good and an uncreated source of evil, with the former creating good substances and the latter creating evil substances, and engaged in a cosmic struggle which will be resolved in some end times scenario…

Christianity is monotheistic, not dualistic. All substances are created by God, and God is the only uncreated.

Great post. One thing I might add is that my (limited, layman’s) understanding of at least the tradition of Christian philosophy, is that Christian philosophy doesn’t consider evil a ‘thing’. Evil isn’t conceived as existing in itself, but rather as being a “privation of the good”.

So everything God created (and God created everything) is indeed good – and evil isn’t some equivalent but opposite set of ‘things’, but rather a privation of the existing good things.

I’d have to entrust a better explanation into a Thomist’s hands though.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

It seems to me “dualism” is frequently misunderstood in these topics… What’s meant is cosmological dualism, that there is an uncreated source of good and an uncreated source of evil, with the former creating good substances and the latter creating evil substances, and engaged in a cosmic struggle which will be resolved in some end times scenario…

Christianity is monotheistic, not dualistic. All substances are created by God, and God is the only uncreated.

Great post. One thing I might add is that my (limited, layman’s) understanding of at least the tradition of Christian philosophy, is that Christian philosophy doesn’t consider evil a ‘thing’. Evil isn’t conceived as existing in itself, but rather as being a “privation of the good”.

So everything God created (and God created everything) is indeed good – and evil isn’t some equivalent but opposite set of ‘things’, but rather a privation of the existing good things.

I’d have to entrust a better explanation into a Thomist’s hands though.

Yes, evil as a privation of some good/perfection that should be in a thing is a classical teaching of Sts. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. And this formulation is used a lot in Latin theology.

I’m a Thomist, so I believe it correct, but I don’t want to go so far as to say it’s the only formulation the Church may find acceptable. But certainly all orthodox Christianity professes that God is the creator of all things, visible and invisible.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But I read some of what he writes and teaches (e.g. claiming a theological impossibility of hell coexisting with a good God), and honestly it shakes my faith (because if it were true that there’s ultimately no hell and we all get to heaven in the end, it sure doesn’t matter that I stay Christian now, and my life could be so much easier and more materially prosperous if I wasn’t), and I want as few people exposed to that kind of dangerous theology as possible.

I think that has a lot to do with Dualism. Our Christian life can be about doing good simply because it is the right thing to do, in accord with God’s will. The threat of Hell kind of underminds our freedom. Not that I am arguing one way or another about its existence.

 

[Shakuhachi]

It seems to me “dualism” is frequently misunderstood in these topics, or that some of the replies are non-sequiturs What’s meant is cosmological dualism, that there is an uncreated source of good and an uncreated source of evil, with the former creating good substances and the latter creating evil substances, and engaged in a cosmic struggle which will be resolved in some end times scenario.

ok, then. thank you. No Christianity is definitely not dualistic. If that is what the OP intended to mean.

 

[Dovekin]

So everything God created (and God created everything) is indeed good – and evil isn’t some equivalent but opposite set of ‘things’, but rather a privation of the existing good things.

In that context, if hell were a place of evil, it could not have been created by a good God. It all depends on what we are referring to by the word hell.