Thread: Purgatory: Sin and salvation Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000828
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
So as not to derail the Good of religion thread I'm posting this here.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hope I don't sound terribly quaint by adding "Salvation" to the list of religious goods.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Doesn't the religious invention of sin kind of cancel that one out?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I ask with morbid curiousity, George, what you imagine religious people mean by "sin?"
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I can't because religious people have almost as many definitions of sin as there are religious people.
I can tell you the one I've heard the most from other Christians. It's that in Genesis Adam and Eve sinned, (this is either seen as literal or a metaphor for people not obeying god), this then causes a rift between people and god that somehow affects people today. So in order for humans to get back to god Jesus had to be sacrificed and take this sin onto himself, pay our debt so to speak.
No as I've already stated I realise this is not how all Christians define sin it's just the one I hear the most.
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
--snip--
Originally posted by Evensong
Shame that. Shit theology.
It's all those loud mouthed Evangelicals.
----------------------------------------------
So anyway if this is shit theology anyone care to enlighten me?
[ 02. December 2011, 09:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
And you choose to take Christians to task for the theology you are fully aware is the most simplistic because...? Oh, why do I ask questions I already know the answer to? There, I did it again!
At any rate, you are confusing Christian explanations for the origin of sin for what sin itself is. Those "loud mouthed evangelicals" may have a simplistic enough account for sin's origins, but they are not as simplistic as confusing the origin of a thing with the thing itself. Sin is maliciousness, selfishness, and all that, which I am sure you will not try to blame on Christianity or religion. (Well... pretty sure...) Its origins, in the Christian scheme of things, is disobedience to God.
Zach
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Genesis 1-2, for me at least, is a more-or-less literary treatment of the felt anxiety in the separation of human beings from God. It's one answer to the "problem of evil," too, and only (to my mind) a partial response.
The "sacrifice" part is more complicated - although when you think about it, perhaps it's really not. It's actually not that rare for human beings to sacrifice themselves to save the lives of others; soldiers do it, and firemen and -women, and cops, and people who volunteer for all kinds of dangerous duty in the world. The Christ story, when looked at in these terms, simply elevates that concept to the cosmic level.
We do use "sacrifice" language in our liturgies, in fact, although lots of people agree that it's "shit theology." I don't think so, personally - and I think there's far more to it than usually gets taken account of.
[ 20. June 2011, 14:40: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
For what it's worth, I think sin and salvation are two of the most pernicious ideas still promoted by churches. They're part of the theological smoke-screen Christianity puts out to hide the lack of substance in its traditional explanations. Even those who recognise such problems mostly keep using the words to hang on to a passing appearance of orthodoxy. We'd make far more sense to far more people if we consigned them to history.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
For what it's worth, I think sin and salvation are two of the most pernicious ideas still promoted by churches. They're part of the theological smoke-screen Christianity puts out to hide the lack of substance in its traditional explanations. Even those who recognise such problems mostly keep using the words to hang on to a passing appearance of orthodoxy. We'd make far more sense to far more people if we consigned them to history.
Rhetorical God forbid people who use these words actually believe in them! It's all a pernicious smoke screen, you see. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Zach
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Yeah, I have to disagree with Dave Marshall about this, too. Sin and salvation have never been "smoke screens"; they are at the very heart of the Christian religion - perhaps at the very heart of ALL religion (although I'm not very familiar in-depth with other religions, I admit).
I got 175 hits on BibleGateway searching for "salvation" - and 1200 searching on "sin".
These are very old ideas, and not something dreamed up recently as a coverup.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Rhetorical God forbid people who use these words actually believe in them!
See how effective the smoke is. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And you choose to take Christians to task for the theology you are fully aware is the most simplistic because...? Oh, why do I ask questions I already know the answer to? There, I did it again!
No I wasnt aware it's the most simplistic theollogy.
At any rate, you are confusing Christian explanations for the origin of sin for what sin itself is. Those "loud mouthed evangelicals" may have a simplistic enough account for sin's origins, but they are not as simplistic as confusing the origin of a thing with the thing itself.
Well I was responding to the meaning of sin as it corresponds with salvatiuon so thought the origins stuff was important.
Sin is maliciousness, selfishness, and all that. which I am sure you will not try to blame on Christianity or religion. (Well... pretty sure...) Its origins, in the Christian scheme of things, is disobedience to God.
Ok so can we simplify this to one statement - "Sin is disobedience to God"?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
These are very old ideas, and not something dreamed up recently as a coverup.
Not dreamed up as coverup, certainly. For most of history I imagine they were useful aids for people understanding themselves and their relationship to God. I think that time has passed, though. At least for most western twenty-first century mindsets.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
To call the idea of sin pernicious is bizarre. It seems to suggest that somewhere in the past, one group of people got so much power and dominance over everybody else that they were able to brainwash not only them, but everyone else, into believing that there's something called "sin", which in the real world (the one with fluffy bunnies and trees that hug you back) doesn't exist.
Crap. The fact is that the idea of "sin" has been around as long as the idea of "gods", and in fact the two are inseparable. Why? Because we're not gods, and sin is the way we describe the gap between being human and being divine. "Sin" is not an invention of Christian priestcraft, it's Human Psychology 101. Probably Neanderthal Psychology 101 too, for that matter.
Most of the people I deal with day to day - probably around 80% - aren't religious, and don't have a religious vocabulary. But nearly all of them are worried by the gut feeling that they're less than they might be. That gut feeling is what finds its articulation in the vocabulary of sin. The healing of the pain it causes comes not by telling people to grow up because there's no such thing, but by using the vocabulary of forgiveness and acceptance.
Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on
:
So Dave,
What would you say are the current issues facing humanity's self understanding and thier relationship with God. Or is it that now we have rejected the smoke screen of Sin there are no issues?
SS
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
See how effective the smoke is.
If you believe that "sin talk" is only used by dupes and liars, then you have no reason to engage this discussion. Take it to hell and let us fools and liars discuss with people silly enough to believe in our sincerity.
quote:
Well I was responding to the meaning of sin as it corresponds with salvatiuon so thought the origins stuff was important.... Ok so can we simplify this to one statement - "Sin is disobedience to God"?
It depends. One can simplify the concept of physics to "Things move around" without thereby concluding that is all there is to be said about physics, can't one?
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 15:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]It depends. One can simplify the concept of physics to "Things move around" without thereby concluding that is all there is to be said about physics, can't one?
Zach
So sin means more than just disobedience to God?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
Whether you believe the first couple of chapters of genesis or not makes no odds. Whether or not there was a 'first sinner' who has somehow implicated you, the truth is that you yourself have sinned; you have lied, cheated, hated, been immoral in word and deed, etc, etc.
The responsibility is squarely on your shoulders - you are responsible for your own thoughts, words and actions; and there is no way on God's earth that you can possibly say you have not sinned.
And I include me in that too - we have all sinned against each other and against God. And btw it's not those 'loud-mouthed evangelicals', it's the whole church, responding to the need of humankind that is actually offering forgiveness!
Without the Gospel, you would be left in your state of knowing you're a sinner and not knowing what to do about it! The Good News of the Gospel is that there is total forgiveness rather than condemnation.
And if, by any chance, you feel you want to debate the reality of sin in your life and try to tell me that you are not a sinner, I would gladly receive from you a signed photo of your nail-scarred hands.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
So sin means more than just disobedience to God?
That's what Christians say, but you cannot reject the reality of sin just because you reject Christianity.
Look at it this way. When I was a child I used to hit my brother, quite out of the blue, for absolutely no reason but sheer malicious glee in hurting him. That what I used to do was wrong and that I was responsible for that is, I hope, beyond doubt for you. The reality of sin, a particular sin here, is indubitable, because it only takes one particular sin to exist for the reality of sin itself to become beyond doubt.
The Christian hypothesis that this sin sprang from a hatred of myself and my brother and ultimately for God is dubitable.
Zach
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
If we can't talk of sin and salvation (no matter how abused you think those terms may have been)then we have created a profound disconnect with Xtian tradition (not to mention scripture).
There is also a massive gap between this idea and reality, the concept of sin is about moral wrongdoing and I, for one, have no other viable way of describing much of what goes on in the world or even in my own heart.
The stories we tell, whether highbrow or lowbrow are full of ideas of redemption and sacrifice so it's certainly still a culturally resonant theme (and a money spinner for Hollywood and the like).
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I think it is just plain wrong to say that the OP is using a simplistic version of the christian teaching of sin and salvation. He doesn't tie it to any literal acceptance of Genesis, which is accepted as a metaphor, nor to any narrow view on how it is that Christ's sacrifice atones.
I would say it certainly covers the view of 90% of western christians who would self-identify as believers as opposed to just church goers. I accept that the eastern take on this is not really the same, but we are still not familiar with eastern christianity.
I agree with the Anglican Mascall who said that original sin is the most self-evident but hardest to explain doctrine of the faith. How anyone can say it is a non-problem defeats me.
But I am less comfortable with the idea of an atoning sacrifice. I keep intending to read Rene Girard for a more modern understanding of it, but he's not exactly a page turner. I rather sympathise with the Muslim critique that christianity failed to eradicate older ideas of expiatory sacrifce, and rather prefer their teaching that the only pre-requisite for a relationship with God is a genuine desire to enter that relationship on God's terms.
I also question whether acceptance should be the over-riding motif. It soon turns into the idea that ones actual behaviour is irrelevant to your relationship with God, which strikes me as plain nonsense. Obviously there is a valid point. It's a rehab unit which accepts all. But that acceptance does not affect the rehab.
It is of course a gross distortion to say that evangelicals teach that you are saved no matter what you do. Some teach this, but their probably just after your money.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
When I was a child I used to hit my brother, quite out of the blue, for absolutely no reason but sheer malicious glee in hurting him. That what I used to do was wrong and that I was responsible for that is, I hope, beyond doubt for you. The reality of sin, a particular sin here, is indubitable
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
I would add "while knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway," but I suppose it looks like a good enough definition.
Zach
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
the only pre-requisite for a relationship with God is a genuine desire to enter that relationship on God's terms.
What if they include dealing with sin - if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
Why?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Most of the people I deal with day to day - probably around 80% - aren't religious, and don't have a religious vocabulary. But nearly all of them are worried by the gut feeling that they're less than they might be. That gut feeling is what finds its articulation in the vocabulary of sin. The healing of the pain it causes comes not by telling people to grow up because there's no such thing, but by using the vocabulary of forgiveness and acceptance.
Which is all very well. Trouble is, though, in spite of this vaunted "forgiveness" and "acceptance", you're still going to pop your clogs, though, aren't you? Whoops - wait a minute - that'll be where the idea of "salvation" comes in.
I think it's naive to think that the concept of "sin" hasn't occasionally been used for social control from time to time. It's only comparatively recently that the church and the state have separated to such an extent that a thing the church might call a "sin", and a thing the state might call a "crime", are not necessarily one and the same thing.
Having said that, it's always been impossible to legislate compulsory heroics. You can threaten to kill people for failing to comply with the law - but you can't threaten to kill people for refusing to risk their lives on the battlefield. Well - you can - but it won't help much. So I suspect this is part of the reason why Paul said that you cannot be saved by legal compliance alone.
Back to the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Seems unjust, and wrong headed to me to a: say people are guilty for something that someone did in pre history and b: use human? Human/god? sacrifice to solve any problem.
I agree. But I don't think that makes the concepts of sin and salvation irrelevant. Just means that the theology is a bit skew-whiff, that's all.
It seems to me that the first inescapable reality is that we're all mortal. We all die. And there's a limit to the extent that our death is predictable - although it's not so unpredictable as to make us think that we probably won't die at all.
Any theology that fails to take this into account can immediately be put onto the "also-ran" pile. This cuts out a lot of the crap that gets dressed up as Christian theology. There's still some crap left over, but it makes it a bit easier to dig out the gems.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
if sin estranges then some form of atonement is necessary to reconcile.
Why?
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Whether you believe the first couple of chapters of genesis or not makes no odds. Whether or not there was a 'first sinner' who has somehow implicated you, the truth is that you yourself have sinned; you have lied, cheated, hated, been immoral in word and deed, etc, etc.
Yes I have lied. Sometimes lying was the right thing to do and sometimes it wasn't. I can't think of a cheating example but I've certainly hated. Again sometimes that hate was justified and sometimes not. The being immoral is up for debate. It depends what you see a immoral behaviour.
So the thing is I'm more than willing to admit I have done things that I knew were not the right thing to do. But as far as I can see doing something you know is wrong is not exactly the same thing as sin. That's what I'm after I guess. What is sin and what makes it different than just doing wrong things?
The responsibility is squarely on your shoulders - you are responsible for your own thoughts, words and actions; and there is no way on God's earth that you can possibly say you have not sinned.
Agree totally with being responsible for my actions. But to say I have sinned I'd first have to understand what sin is.
And if, by any chance, you feel you want to debate the reality of sin in your life and try to tell me that you are not a sinner, I would gladly receive from you a signed photo of your nail-scarred hands.
Huh?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
Zach
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So "sin" is just doing things that are wrong?
I would add "while knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway," but I suppose it looks like a good enough definition.
The "while knowing it's wrong" bit gives one heck of an "out" to sociopaths!
But if sin is just "doing bad things" then what's salvation about? And what is it from?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Huh?
Could it be that Spigot is not so much as questioning the reality of sin as denying that he's sinned?
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
Zach
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The "while knowing it's wrong" bit gives one heck of an "out" to sociopaths!
But if sin is just "doing bad things" then what's salvation about? And what is it from?
Salvation is about a person becoming what he or she ought to be, and Christianity offers a very high possibility for this-- the image and likeness of God. Of course, the much derided concept of original sin comes up here, because escaping sin is not a mere matter of "not sinning." We have our habits and proclivities after all, and what we ought to be is so much more than not acting. Christianity does, after declaring this highest possibility of a human person, hold up a way that we can actually hope for this possibility.
No doubt we will be derided for getting peoples' hopes up for this.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Huh?
Could it be that Spigot is not so much as questioning the reality of sin as denying that he's sinned?
Zach
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
It's another major area of debate in Christianity-- the atonement. Many Christians do not accept this interpretation- that Christ has to suffer so we could be set aright. What we all agree, however, is that this sacrifice does put us aright with God.
I rather think the Cross is itself salvation, something to be strived for, rather than the bitter pill that is a cure.
Of course, the debate in evolution about whether it goes forward steadily or in equilibriums and fits doesn't mean evolution isn't true, so it's no use pointing to disagreement in any component of the Christian hypothesis to try to disprove the hypothesis itself.
quote:
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
He was saying only Jesus was sinless.
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 16:50: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
"Son, you've done something wrong".
"Sorry dad".
"Now I want to forgive you...".
"Great".
"But I can't".
"Oh".
"You need to atone".
"Ok. Well I can.....".
"So your brother is going to be tortured and killed. Then I can forgive you".
"....................what!".
Strawman alert !!!
Seriously, forgiveness involves an absorption of the cost of wrongdoing. Whether that cost is financial, emotional, spiritual, reputational or whatever.
The various pictures of Atonement that Xtian theology uses to explain what Jesus did to make salvation possible - try to show us how God was in Christ absorbing the real cost of our real moral bankruptcy.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's what atonement means! You can't be at one with someone until you have reconciled whatever it is that separates you.
Indeed, that is the whole dilemma Christianity tries to solve. Being in a relationship with God is impossible without humanity being set aright. The Cross made it possible for humanity to be in the right relationship, which we call the "state of grace."
I for one found that I didn't really "get it" about sin and atonement until I flicked through Greek tragedies.
The idea of making a sacrifice to atone for sins can be found in both the Old Testament and in Greek tragedies. However, in the Old Testament, that sacrifice usually only takes the form of animals. The idea that a warrior who gives his life on the battlefield can also be thought of as a "sacrifice" is made much more explicit in the Greek tragedies - and I found that it wasn't until I grasped that idea that I started to understand why Christians might have thought that the sacrifice of Jesus was superior to Levitical sacrifice.
A related idea is that you can atone for your sins with heroic deeds. Hence the tradition of Heracles, who is said to have been tricked by Hera into slaying his family - but who "atoned" for those "sins" by performing twelve labours for king Eurystheus.
But hey - perhaps I still haven't quite "got it" about sin and atonement. But these days, if anyone thinks that they've "got it" in a way that I haven't, but they fail to explain why in a way that I understand, then I tend to suspect them of intellectual elitism.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I for one found that I didn't really "get it" about sin and atonement until I flicked through Greek tragedies.
The idea of making a sacrifice to atone for sins can be found in both the Old Testament and in Greek tragedies. However, in the Old Testament, that sacrifice usually only takes the form of animals. The idea that a warrior who gives his life on the battlefield can also be thought of as a "sacrifice" is made much more explicit in the Greek tragedies - and I found that it wasn't until I grasped that idea that I started to understand why Christians might have thought that the sacrifice of Jesus was superior to Levitical sacrifice.
A related idea is that you can atone for your sins with heroic deeds. Hence the tradition of Heracles, who is said to have been tricked by Hera into slaying his family - but who "atoned" for those "sins" by performing twelve labours for king Eurystheus.
But hey - perhaps I still haven't quite "got it" about sin and atonement. But these days, if anyone thinks that they've "got it" in a way that I haven't, but they fail to explain why in a way that I understand, then I tend to suspect them of intellectual elitism.
Rene Girard (who was already mentioned up thread) has a very interesting take on this.
The fact is, God never needed our sacrifices. We needed them! We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it. Girard points out that in Greek tragedies, the victim almost always really deserved to be destroyed. People imagine in their myths that the gods actually want blood as much as they do.
What the Bible does is quite the opposite. The bible never says the victim deserves its fate, and over and over it actually identifies with the victim. The Cross is God's mighty act to diffuse the "single victim mechanism" once and for all.
Zach
[ 20. June 2011, 17:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I didn't understand how not having nail scarred hands would prove I'm a sinner.
In many Christian traditions, people aren't acknowledged to be saints until after they're dead. And even then, it gets frowned on if they're called a saint too quickly after they've died.
Whilst you're alive, no-one can know what you might be plotting and scheming. You may have led a perfectly blameless life so far - but until you're dead, and until sufficient time has passed to allow the dust to settle so as to ensure there are no skeletons in the closet (other than your own, of course), then no-one can say with any certainty that you aren't a sinner and that you are a saint.
I realise that some Protestants see it differently - but then again, even Harold Camping and Fred Phelps would be regarded as a saint by some of them.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The fact is, God never needed our sacrifices. We needed them! We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
Do you know, it's funny you mention that - because it makes me think of the things the Daily Mail say about crime and punishment.
They always seem to want someone to hang for the slightest, um, slight. They don't seem to care whether we catch the right guy or not.
And then, when miscarriages of justice happen, as they inevitably do, guess what? Yep! The Daily Mail want someone to hang for that too. And so the cycle continues.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Girard points out that in Greek tragedies, the victim almost always really deserved to be destroyed.
The key word there being "almost". An obvious exception would be Agamemnon's daugher Iphigenia. She was without sin. When the victim is without sin, then their sacrificial death makes them into heroes and/or deities. So Iphigenia ascends to the heavens.
Bit like Jesus. Except for the gender perhaps. And possibly also the question of whether or not she ever actually existed.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What the Bible does is quite the opposite. The bible never says the victim deserves its fate, and over and over it actually identifies with the victim. The Cross is God's mighty act to diffuse the "single victim mechanism" once and for all.
Which is great. Trouble is, it doesn't appear to have worked. Well, not if the Daily Mail is anything to go by, anyway.
Still, it's a nice idea, all the same.
But we're in danger of going off on a tangent. I think there's a distinction to be made between whether or not someone believes that atonement actually works when they do understand it, and whether or not they can even get their heads round the concept of "atonement" in the first place.
Unless I've misread the OP, the problem seems to be more the latter rather than the former.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
It's what Girard argues. The possibility of doing otherwise, he insists, is the product of Christian influence. Even then it's still with us. "These immigrants are taking our jobs." "The Jewish bankers are responsible for the sorry state of the nation." "Those Arabs are terrorists out to get us." Projecting our ills onto faceless outsiders is so easily done we hardly notice it.
Take away from Girard what you will. I rather like his explanation of the sacrifice mechanism, but I personally don't make it the whole theme of history and the Bible like he does.
Zach
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
Certainly on the "doing something wrong" part, but I find myself going back and forth on the "Knowingly" part. Certainly it is worse to sin knowingly, but isn't one still culpable on some level even if he doesn't know it's wrong? There is still just as much suffering for the victim whether the sinner knows or not. Kierkegaard, whom I cite so very often, wrote that real sin means to sin knowingly, but those who do not know still sin because they fail to consider the nature of their actions while yet being able to.
This is what I mean by simplicity of expression not entailing simplicity of the concepts expressed!
Zach
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
I heard a sermon where the priest said that sin is that which damages our relationships (with God and with others).
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
It's what Girard argues. The possibility of doing otherwise, he insists, is the product of Christian influence. Even then it's still with us. "These immigrants are taking our jobs." "The Jewish bankers are responsible for the sorry state of the nation." "Those Arabs are terrorists out to get us." Projecting our ills onto faceless outsiders is so easily done we hardly notice it.
Take away from Girard what you will. I rather like his explanation of the sacrifice mechanism, but I personally don't make it the whole theme of history and the Bible like he does.
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
However, like you, I don't think it's the whole story of the Bible either.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
If you will permit me to admit the Heraclean "heroic deeds" model of atonement for a moment, then I think we can see why there's a problem with limiting "sin" just to that which you do "knowingly".
Unless I'm relying on modern versions that have read more into it than was actually there in the original, I think it's a big point of the Heracles story that he did not know what he was doing at the moment he did it. Hera made him think his wife Megara and their children were monsters, that had previously slaughtered his livestock. So he slaughtered the monsters. As you do. It's only when he found the dead corpses of Megara and the kids that he realised he'd screwed up.
And that's the reason he put himself into the service of Eurystheus in the first place. However, his successful performance in those deeds had the effect of elevating Heracles to hero status, in spite of his former sins, and much to the annoyance of Eurystheus as well, who was hoping to be able to get one over on Heracles, and humiliate him. There was a regal succession dispute going on between Eurystheus and Heracles, you see - and if the heroics of Heracles had the effect of making Eurystheus look cowardly (which they did), then Eurystheus would not have been a happy bunny.
The point here is not the model of atonement - heroic deeds, sacrifice, martyrdom, or whatever - it's that sin isn't necessarily something you only do unknowingly. Sin can be anything that you might be ashamed of, regardless of whether or not it was actually your fault.
Indeed, in this looser definition of "sin", sin could even mean flunking your exams when your parents have given you lots of support. Sin can mean gambling away your inheritance, even if those "gambles" seemed like "sensible investment decisions" at the time.
So I think the story of the prodigal son is very relevant. The prodigal son is not recorded as having done anything that actually flouted any formalised laws or morals - but he still behaved in a shameful way all the same, and he still needed forgiveness.
Which might perhaps be part of the reason why St Paul thought that focussing purely on laws to determine what is, and isn't, a sin, is to miss the point.
Then again, maybe not.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]We are the ones what want violence and blood and revenge for the wrongs done to us. So we focus our rage for every slight into a single victim and tell ourselves the victim deserved it.
We do? Really?
Yes. Scapegoating comes very, very naturally to human beings; somebody always has to take the fall for what goes wrong.
I mean, just take a look at human history; it's really not that hard to see this. Minority groups in particular make excellent scapegoats, and always have.
"First they came for the ____________," etc.
[ 20. June 2011, 18:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
But this is directly from Jesus' own teachings: Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you. His lived-out example was forgiveness from the cross.
Girard says this this is what makes Christianity different, in fact: that the whole scapegoating game is thrown into disrepute because the victim was clearly innocent.
(There's actually a problem with his theory, in that he says that scapegoating is the means by which communities resolve disputes - that all the various factions' hatred is directed at this one scapegoat, and that this is how reconciliation is effected and peace restored. Which implies that when the game is shown to be a fraud and no longer workable, resentments have no place to get shunted off to. Thus, peace between people becomes impossible and simmering resentment is all around! I think his most recent book addresses this problem, in fact - and says that Christianity will effect its own demise because of this! Or something like that.
But perhaps not. Perhaps forgiveness of enemies actually does dissipate the resentment. I've been wanting to read more about this, too....)
[ 20. June 2011, 18:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So ive just looked back over the last few posts. Can I assume for the time being that Sin is being defined as "Knowingly doing something wrong"?
Certainly on the "doing something wrong" part, but I find myself going back and forth on the "Knowingly" part. Certainly it is worse to sin knowingly, but isn't one still culpable on some level even if he doesn't know it's wrong?
Forget Kierkegaard. Unsure about something? Snoop around in the Orthodox liturgy until you find something about; you may be looking a while, but you'll find it eventually.
Oh. Here is it: quote:
Wherefore I pray thee, have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance; and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of thine immaculate Mysteries.
here at the OCA website
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I was sitting on the street car thinking about how salvation makes sin possible.
We can admit that humanity is wicked all we like, but there is no sin if we can't point to another way we could be. We can shrug our shoulders and say "It's all unforunate, but there's nothing to be done about it." Then Jesus comes along and says "It is the way things are, but not the way they have to be." Jesus gives us a choice! And only when acts are freely chosen is it possible for them to be real sins, instead of simply unfortunate choices.
Of course, being able to choose is what makes us human, isn't it? We are not mere creatures of circumstance and instinct. Jesus makes real humanity possible in giving us a choice.
So it must be true, that in giving us the possibility of being another way than we are, Jesus makes sin and damnation possible. Since we have a choice, we can shoulder blame for that choice. No wonder we crucified Him! Before He came, it was impossible for us to be guilty because it was impossible for us to be any other way. So we got rid of him, in an attempt to get rid of the possibility- without salvation damnation cannot be a worry.
God, as terrible as he is good, refused to let us dispense of the possibility of salvation. He raised Christ up from the dead anyway, forcing on us the possibility of sin or redemption.
Is the offer of being human worth the risk of damnation?
Zach
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
If Girard says we're naturally vengeful and we want blood and guts, I think he's is right on the money - although I'd suspect that the ability of Christianity to break away from that may perhaps have been over-egged.
But this is directly from Jesus' own teachings: Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you. His lived-out example was forgiveness from the cross.
Girard says this this is what makes Christianity different, in fact: that the whole scapegoating game is thrown into disrepute because the victim was clearly innocent.
Different, yes - but unique, no. I'm still not seeing how the story of the innocence of Jesus, in this regard, is any different to that of Iphigenia in Aulis.
I'm also sceptical of the idea that Christianity is able to claim that this difference makes it somehow culturally superior to other religions. Why? Because, rather ironically, the idea that Jesus was scapegoated for something that he was innocent of, does not appear to have stopped Christian culture from scapegoating Jews for killing Jesus.
For example, the idea wasn't formally retracted from Roman Catholic doctrine until the 1960's. Still, better late than never I suppose.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There's actually a problem with his theory, in that he says that scapegoating is the means by which communities resolve disputes - that all the various factions' hatred is directed at this one scapegoat, and that this is how reconciliation is effected and peace restored.
I don't doubt that death can sometimes reconcile warring communities. But sometimes, it can have the opposite effect.
Especially if the scapegoat is only recognised as an innocent victim by those on one side of the dispute - but not by those on the other.
Which, come to think of it, appears to be what has happened to Jesus. Christians think he was innocent - but Jews, funnily enough, don't. To the extent that Talmudic writings refer to him at all (which isn't very much, which shouldn't surprise us, seeing as it's probably not in Rabbinic tradition's interest to confer Herostratic fame on Jesus), there seems to be the idea that Jesus was guilty of idolatry.
That doesn't mean that Talmudic writings assert that Jesus deserved to die in the way he did, though. But squeaky-clean he wasn't.
Bear in mind that in Rabbinic tradition, there are only three sins that are regarded as so serious that it's better to sacrifice yourself rather than commit them, if you are given that choice; and idolatry is one of them. The other two are murder and rape. So the fact that there's evidence that Rabbinic tradition once pinned an idolatry charge on Jesus shows that he's really not in their good books. You can't just brush that aside by saying "idolatry, shmidolatry, it's not that big a deal".
Let's face it. Does anyone here honestly believe that the death of Jesus has healed the rift between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism? From where I'm standing, it looks to me more like it was a cause of that rift.
However, I think that when an innocent death is widely acknowledged on both sides of a dispute (and not just one of them), then it does lead to reconciliation - so, in that regard, I think Girard is right. It's just that Jesus is perhaps not the best example of that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Different, yes - but unique, no. I'm still not seeing how the story of the innocence of Jesus, in this regard, is any different to that of Iphigenia in Aulis.
Easy. The narrative of that story approves of the act. "It was very unfortunate, but circumstances made it necessary."
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
I think on the whole. All things considered. I will distance myself from a barbarous act of cruel violence and stay content with judging my own actions.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
That is precisely Jesus' directions, Spigot. And what, may I ask, will be the criteria for judgement of your own actions?
Zach
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I think on the whole. All things considered. I will distance myself from a barbarous act of cruel violence and stay content with judging my own actions.
This barbarous (sic) act of cruel violence, as you call it, was actually an act of self-giving love by the incarnate Son of God.
To suggest that a wrathful, vengeful God acted cruelly to inflict unjustifiued pain and suffering upon his innocent son is to entirely misrepresent what happened.
The loving action of the Father was to send his Son inh the flesh. It was the will of the entire Godhead that Jesus would be the sacrifice, but it was entirely Jesus' choice to go ahead with it. as he said, g=he laid down his life of bhis own accord.
Were it true that God was guilty of inflicting the punishment ponto Jesus, then the immorality of that action would only be such, if it were the case that Jesus was a man chosen, adoptedm singled out by God, to receive the piunishment for other men.
The fact that Jesus was God in the fleshm and that in him the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, coupled with the fact that God was in Chrust reconcioling the world to himself, pouts paid to this nonsensical idea of innocent victims and an angry God.
The fact is that the whole of God - The Trinity himself - suffered on the cross. God was the sacrificer and the sacrificed. It ewas done in love.
Finally, I would say that if your are the arbiter of your own judgment, it's hardly going to be an objective judgment is it - more like self-justification.
[ 20. June 2011, 20:19: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That is precisely Jesus' directions, Spigot. And what, may I ask, will be the criteria for judgement of your own actions?
Zach
That's a very good question.
Let's see. Well I once stole 50p from my mothers purse back in 1978 but since then Ive not had any urge to steel. I see no need for it. If I ever lost the ability to aquire food any other way then I expect I would try to nab it. Same if my wife and son were starving and there was no other option.
Murder is something I've never wanted to do. And I have no intention of joining the armed forces. Still if I was put in the position of seeing someone else getting killed if I didnt act this way.
I expect I would do it. Lets cut this potentially long and rambling post short and get to the point.
Context is everything and every situation is different and calls for different actions. I will face each day as it comes and do what I see fit. I feel no burning need to harm anyone so I really dont see any problems.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
On looking into the work of René Girard in a bit more detail, I think he's right to have identified a widespread belief in a sacrificial order. However, I think the belief that Christianity has played a significant part in causing belief in that sacrificial order to recede is naive.
The way I see it is that the popular press rants on about crime and punishment, welfare "abusers" and immigration "problems" - and, to me, this is evidence that belief in the sacrificial order is every bit as strong as it has always been. Christianity doesn't appear to have done an awful lot to shift it - although, to Christianity's credit, I do think that it's helped us to throw a spotlight on the issue. (After all, we're talking about it now, aren't we?)
It seems that René Girard's biggest mistake is to assume that victim of the sacrifice must necessarily be thought to be guilty, in order for the sacrificial system to continue. I think that in reality, it makes little or no difference whether any individual victim is regarded as guilty or innocent - and, indeed, it seems that the sacrificial order needs both guilty and innocent victims.
If the victim is thought to be guilty, they are thought to have been justly punished - and if the victim is thought to be innocent, they are hailed as martyrs and heroes. Either way, they're still equally dead at the end of it all - although our concept of the distinction between "heaven" and "hell" in the afterlife is perhaps not unrelated to this.
But the fact that victims are equally dead either way is a point that's strongly made by the medieval crusader epic The Song of Roland; it really plays up the irony of the supposed contrast between pagans being punished and Christians being martyred. Mind you, if you only read a few verses here and there, and take them out of context, you could mistakenly come to think that it's nothing but a piece of gung-ho militaristic jingoism.
The idea that innocent victims are martyrs seems to me to be of foundational importance to a ruling elite's ability to recruit combatants to fight their battles for them. When human population exceeds both the food resources to support it, and the tendency for predation and/or disease to keep it in check, then wars happen. It seems to me that communities get people to fight for them by telling them that they will be heroes if they win, regardless of whether they come back dead or alive - and that, by comparison, it would be shameful to do nothing about the threat they all face.
To me, this is very closely related to the idea that criminals need to be executed. Indeed, in order for it to be possible for a criminal to be executed, someone needs to take a mortal risk so as to restrain that criminal in the first place. I grant that cops very rarely die when they're arresting someone - but it's not completely unheard of. And if the lags in the slammer ever manage to overpower the screws, then the screws may find that their escape from a potentially deadly situation is prevented by the very same security systems that are supposed to be controlling the lags.
That's why I think it's the same sacrificial order system that creates both the executed criminals and the glorified martyrs. It's difficult to have one without the other. And in the context of war, the people who are regarded as "executed criminals" by one side are regarded as "glorified martyrs" by the other. No matter who we think is "guilty", and who we think is "innocent", either way, the same sacrificial order will continue to operate, just as it always has done.
Do I think that this sacrificial order will ever stop? Not this side of the future world renewal, no. As long as death continues to exist, so too will the sacrificial order.
This is part of the reason why I interpret the letter to the Hebrews as an apocalyptic text; the idea that there's no longer a need for repetitive sacrifices seems to be underpinned by the idea that the future world renewal is going to be really really soon. However, in this regard, the letter to the Hebrews has been proved to be every bit as wrong as the predictions of the Olivet discourse, Montanus, Joachim of Fiore, Girolamo Savonarola, William Miller, Edgar Whisenant, Hal Lindsey and Harold Camping.
Doesn't mean it'll never happen at all, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Different, yes - but unique, no. I'm still not seeing how the story of the innocence of Jesus, in this regard, is any different to that of Iphigenia in Aulis.
Easy. The narrative of that story approves of the act. "It was very unfortunate, but circumstances made it necessary."
And Christians believe that people didn't actually need to be saved from their sins at all, and that the death of Jesus wasn't really unnecessary. Oh - wait ....
I grant that it might not explicitly say that in the Gospels. Nevertheless, Christian theology has constructed a meta-narrative on the death of Jesus, in which that death was thought to be necessary for human salvation. Christianity has traditionally taught that it's heretical to believe that humans can be saved any other way apart from Jesus.
And I'm not seeing how that's really any different from saying that Iphigenia needed to die so that the ships could sail.
[ 20. June 2011, 21:20: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
If that is really the case, Spigot, then Christianity can be nothing to you but bowing and repenting and scraping to a God of Judgement. Which is exactly where you started this dicussion. Christianity can offer no attractions to those satisfied with themselves and the world precisely the way they already are.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]This barbarous (sic) act of cruel violence, as you call it, was actually an act of self-giving love by the incarnate Son of God.
barbarous –adjective
1.uncivilized; wild; savage; crude.
2.savagely cruel or harsh:
Whats up with the (sic)?
To suggest that a wrathful, vengeful God acted cruelly to inflict unjustifiued pain and suffering upon his innocent son is to entirely misrepresent what happened.
I hear that cruifiction is a very brutal and painful way to die.
An omnipotent god has no reason to resort to it.
Someone dying two thousand years ago has no effect on my personal moral status.
The loving action of the Father was to send his Son inh the flesh. It was the will of the entire Godhead that Jesus would be the sacrifice, but it was entirely Jesus' choice to go ahead with it. as he said, g=he laid down his life of bhis own accord.
Why was a sacrifice needed? Does god have some sort of blood lust that needs to be sated?
Were it true that God was guilty of inflicting the punishment ponto Jesus, then the immorality of that action would only be such, if it were the case that Jesus was a man chosen, adoptedm singled out by God, to receive the piunishment for other men.
Are you making the point that he wasnt a man or that he wasnt chosen by god?
The fact that Jesus was God in the fleshm and that in him the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, coupled with the fact that God was in Chrust reconcioling the world to himself, pouts paid to this nonsensical idea of innocent victims and an angry God.
The fact is that the whole of God - The Trinity himself - suffered on the cross. God was the sacrificer and the sacrificed. It ewas done in love.
Soooo god committed suicide then. But only a part of god? But not really because he came back? Im sorry I realise Im sounding really flippant here. I'm just trying to express how confusing I'm finding this argument.
Finally, I would say that if your are the arbiter of your own judgment, it's hardly going to be an objective judgment is it - more like self-justification.
No I think it would make it a subjective judgment. But bear in mind I don't know any philosophy or psychology so I may not be using the word correctly.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zach82:
If that is really the case, Spigot, then Christianity can be nothing to you but bowing and repenting and scraping to a God of Judgement. Which is exactly where you started this dicussion.
No Christianity is far more than bowing and repenting and scraping to a God of Judgement.
But I can't start a thread about the whole of christianity its too big a subject. Im asking about one part of christianity.
Christianity can offer no attractions to those satisfied with themselves and the world precisely the way they already are.
Well as it happens I'm far from happy with myself and the way the world is.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I'm also sceptical of the idea that Christianity is able to claim that this difference makes it somehow culturally superior to other religions. Why? Because, rather ironically, the idea that Jesus was scapegoated for something that he was innocent of, does not appear to have stopped Christian culture from scapegoating Jews for killing Jesus.
For example, the idea wasn't formally retracted from Roman Catholic doctrine until the 1960's. Still, better late than never I suppose.
Well, I agree with you - which is why I'm saying that scapegoating appears to exist as a very deep strain in the human psyche. The very fact that most people - including most Christians - can't follow Jesus' prescriptions for living is indicative of just how deep the rift actually is between human beings and God.
Wouldn't you say? In the case we're talking about, I don't think most people ever imagine themselves to be scapegoating at all - but believe rather that their particular prejudices are mostly "normal" and "natural." (I would think this stuff must get classified under "sub-conscious motivation," in fact.)
Anyway, didn't Chesterton say that "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Or something like that? That seems right, to me.
Of course, the question at this point might be: shouldn't we try something easier? Well, maybe! A lot of people don't seem to think that "loving your enemies" is such a good thing, if it's even possible.
But, what's the alternative?
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
Zach82: RE: "Many Christians do not accept this interpretation- that Christ has to suffer so we could be set aright. What we all agree, however, is that this sacrifice does put us aright with God"
ALL of us agree? Not me! I think the Blood Price theology is terrible and have never agreed with it. And yet, I do have a personal relationship with God. Hmmmm. Am I a sinner? Yep. Do I seek forgiveness? Yep. Does God forgive me every time I sin? That's what I believe and hope.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
ALL of us agree? Not me!
Me either.
If people behaved better then there would be less sin and more happiness. It's almost too simple to be worth explaining.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]This barbarous (sic) act of cruel violence, as you call it, was actually an act of self-giving love by the incarnate Son of God.
barbarous –adjective
1.uncivilized; wild; savage; crude.
2.savagely cruel or harsh:
Whats up with the (sic)?
To suggest that a wrathful, vengeful God acted cruelly to inflict unjustifiued pain and suffering upon his innocent son is to entirely misrepresent what happened.
I hear that cruifiction is a very brutal and painful way to die.
An omnipotent god has no reason to resort to it.
Someone dying two thousand years ago has no effect on my personal moral status.
The loving action of the Father was to send his Son inh the flesh. It was the will of the entire Godhead that Jesus would be the sacrifice, but it was entirely Jesus' choice to go ahead with it. as he said, g=he laid down his life of bhis own accord.
Why was a sacrifice needed? Does god have some sort of blood lust that needs to be sated?
Were it true that God was guilty of inflicting the punishment ponto Jesus, then the immorality of that action would only be such, if it were the case that Jesus was a man chosen, adoptedm singled out by God, to receive the piunishment for other men.
Are you making the point that he wasnt a man or that he wasnt chosen by god?
The fact that Jesus was God in the fleshm and that in him the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily, coupled with the fact that God was in Chrust reconcioling the world to himself, pouts paid to this nonsensical idea of innocent victims and an angry God.
The fact is that the whole of God - The Trinity himself - suffered on the cross. God was the sacrificer and the sacrificed. It ewas done in love.
Soooo god committed suicide then. But only a part of god? But not really because he came back? Im sorry I realise Im sounding really flippant here. I'm just trying to express how confusing I'm finding this argument.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Zach82: RE: "Many Christians do not accept this interpretation- that Christ has to suffer so we could be set aright. What we all agree, however, is that this sacrifice does put us aright with God"
ALL of us agree? Not me! I think the Blood Price theology is terrible and have never agreed with it. And yet, I do have a personal relationship with God. Hmmmm. Am I a sinner? Yep. Do I seek forgiveness? Yep. Does God forgive me every time I sin? That's what I believe and hope.
I just said that not all Christians agree that Jesus' death paid a blood price, in that post you just quoted. Since what I actually said was that all Christians believe that the death and resurrection had something to do with the atonement, you are holding out the possibility that the death and resurrection of Jesus had nothing to do with the atonement. Which is a theology I simply classify as "Not Christian."
Zach
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”
****************
I think Sin is the darker part of our nature that makes us commit sins.
Salvation is the power of the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God that helps us overcome our Sin and sins if we ask for help.
Salvation is also knowing that we can be forgiven if we turn/repent and keep on the way.
Salvation is also knowing that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Well as it happens I'm far from happy with myself and the way the world is.
You just said that you haven't done anything worse in your whole life than taking 50 cents from your mother and expressed absolute confidence that moral perfection will come very easily to you for the rest of your life. I can't at all square that post with your post here. Unless your are unhappy here because of non-moral things, like not having enough money or not being smart or handsome enough. Taking so little account of these worldly things, yet again Christianity cannot offer you much.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Well as it happens I'm far from happy with myself and the way the world is.
You just said that you haven't done anything worse in your whole life than taking 50 cents from your mother and expressed absolute confidence that moral perfection will come very easily to you for the rest of your life. I can't at all square that post with your post here. Unless your are unhappy here because of non-moral things, like not having enough money or not being smart or handsome enough. Taking so little account of these worldly things, yet again Christianity cannot offer you much.
Zach
My unhappiness in myself comes from an inability to gain the skills and education needed to get an interesting and well paying job and depression. One is caused by lack of ability and possibly some form of Innumeracy. The other is caused by brain chemistry.
Nothing at all to do with "doing things that are wrong" or "disobeying god".
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
So:
No sin
No redemption
No sacrifice
No truth in the teaching of Scripture.
Ah well, you're not the first.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
But if sin is just "doing bad things" then what's salvation about? And what is it from?
Salvation is about a person becoming what he or she ought to be, and Christianity offers a very high possibility for this-- the image and likeness of God.
The problem with that is: Christianity pre-defines what people "ought" to be, then demands that they agree with its definition and completely change themselves to fit.
Why don't we get to decide what we "ought to be"?
quote:
Of course, the much derided concept of original sin comes up here, because escaping sin is not a mere matter of "not sinning."
If sin is doing bad things (which you've already agreed with), then you're wrong here. All one has to do to avoid "doing bad things" is avoid doing bad things.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Is the offer of being human worth the risk of damnation?
No.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...that moral perfection will come very easily to you for the rest of your life.
Who said anything about perfection? There is such a concept as "good enough", you know.
Sometimes it feels as if Christianity treats life like an exam where the pass mark is 100%. Get even one question wrong and you fail. Well fuck that. I'll take a perfectly respectable 75 - 80%, I think that's good enough.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No sin
No redemption
No sacrifice
No truth in the teaching of Scripture.
No problems
No worries
No fear
No damnation
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 21. June 2011, 08:54: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Up to now I've held off from this thread, thinking that it has all the signs of "another PSA" thread, just coming at that belief from a different direction.
But listening to BBC Radio 4's fascinating Book of the Week - "Born liars: why we can't do without deceit" made me wonder whether there might be some more constructive ways into the discussion. After 6+ years I get a bit weary of the polarisation and the shouting past one another.
I suppose this thought is triggered also by a Johnny S comment on another thread, that human beings are especially gifted at self-deception. Listening to this morning's excerpt from the book provided some fascinating insights into the ways in which some propensity to deceive seems to be inbuilt in children (and animals) and also the way deceptive skills get developed in children - a kind of risk/reward/growing-awareness thing.
So my question for George Spigot goes way back to the start. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" - is a pretty well known biblical statement about human nature - and in context it is being said primarily to believers. Let me ask you an analogous question.
By your own standards, never mind what you perceive as Christian standards, do you think you have any tendencies to do things you regard as wrong, and any capacity to kid yourself that these things are OK? In your own mind, is this a reasonable question for people of different beliefs to discuss? It gets round the issue of common moral code, at least to some extent.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So:
No sin
No redemption
No sacrifice
No truth in the teaching of Scripture.
Ah well, you're not the first.
Yeah well Ecclesiastes 1:9 and all that.
No sin: I think sin is a religious concept. Individuals and society's can and do decide what a good action and what a bad action would be on a case by case basis.
No redemption: Not in the theological sense no.
No sacrifice: People who sacrifice themselves usually do so for rational reasons. A fireman or woman running into a burning building to save someone for example so again not in the theological sense.
No truth in the teaching of Scripture: I'm not a historical scholar so it's difficult for me to comment but I've yet to be convinced.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
By your own standards, never mind what you perceive as Christian standards, do you think you have any tendencies to do things you regard as wrong, and any capacity to kid yourself that these things are OK? In your own mind, is this a reasonable question for people of different beliefs to discuss? It gets round the issue of common moral code, at least to some extent.
Excellent question. Yes I have some tendencies to do things I regard as wrong. As far as a capacity to kid myself into thinking that these things are OK, I used to have that capacity when I was younger. The older I get though the more self aware I seem to become. This was helped by someone introducing me to cognitive behavioral therapy. So now a days I don't seem to have the capacity to lie to myself.
I also think its reasonable to discuss most things with people of different beliefs.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Of course, the much derided concept of original sin comes up here, because escaping sin is not a mere matter of "not sinning."
If sin is doing bad things (which you've already agreed with), then you're wrong here. All one has to do to avoid "doing bad things" is avoid doing bad things.
Agree completely. So the only question is how to reduce the incidence of evil.
There is no such thing as "original sin," nor does the Bible say there is. Escaping sin is entirely a matter of "not sinning." With God's help, of course.
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones. Whatever moves people in that direction helps the world become a better and happier place. And people behaving well from genuine hearts is what defines heaven.
Any movement in that direction is a good thing, and this is what God's efforts with us are all about.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So:
No sin
No redemption
No sacrifice
No truth in the teaching of Scripture.
Ah well, you're not the first.
You need to broaden your horizons on definitions.
From what I read, George Spigot believes in sin (doing wrong) and has found a way to help himself (cognitive behavioral therapy).
Good on him.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
No sin: I think sin is a religious concept. Individuals and society's can and do decide what a good action and what a bad action would be on a case by case basis.
We cannot live by a case by case basis. Our society is framed by laws that decide what is right and what is wrong (or in other definitions - what is sinful and what is good).
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
No sacrifice: People who sacrifice themselves usually do so for rational reasons. A fireman or woman running into a burning building to save someone for example so again not in the theological sense.
Self sacrifice is not rational without a Christian ethic.
Pure evolutionary theory and reason dictates preserve yourself at all costs. Why save someone else?
p.s. Why is it that depressed people are often so insightful?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones. Whatever moves people in that direction helps the world become a better and happier place. And people behaving well from genuine hearts is what defines heaven.
Any movement in that direction is a good thing, and this is what God's efforts with us are all about.
That sounds great. The problems come when what one religion says is good conflicts with what anothers religion says is good. Or when the religious good conflicts with the non religious good. Or when two secular sides disagree on what is good.
Ok I've given you a big opening there. Who's going to be the first to call me out on it?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]We cannot live by a case by case basis. Our society is framed by laws that decide what is right and what is wrong (or in other definitions - what is sinful and what is good).
We can live by a case by case basis. Laws don't stop people doing that they provide repercussions such as prison or fines for when society says the decision someone made was wrong and hurtful to society.
Anti-war protesters may decide to break the law by trespassing and damaging ministry of defence property. They are deciding that in this particulary case they are doing the right thing. Laws do nothing to stop them. They just allow them to be taken to court afterwards.
[QB]Self sacrifice is not rational without a Christian ethic.
Pure evolutionary theory and reason dictates preserve yourself at all costs. Why save someone else?
Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how we came to be not a doctrine on how we ought to live. It's not something that is enacted.
Why save someone else? Most of the time because we have empathy.
p.s. Why is it that depressed people are often so insightful?
I thought I was just rambling on in an uneducated way. I appreciate the compliment.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
By your own standards, never mind what you perceive as Christian standards, do you think you have any tendencies to do things you regard as wrong, and any capacity to kid yourself that these things are OK? In your own mind, is this a reasonable question for people of different beliefs to discuss? It gets round the issue of common moral code, at least to some extent.
The gap between saying I do bad things and could be a nicer person and saying I'm a sinner who will suffer damnation unless I recieve Salvation from God is quite large.
Nobody's saying they're perfect, or they don't do bad stuff. It's all the other baggage that talk of "sin" and "salvation" brings with it that's the problem. I mean, "Salvation" doesn't just mean becoming a nicer person, does it?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones.
Then it doesn't matter what people believe, only what they do?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Self sacrifice is not rational without a Christian ethic.
Pure evolutionary theory and reason dictates preserve yourself at all costs. Why save someone else?
Total bullshit. The choice is not between "a Christian ethic" and "pure evolutionary theory and reason". Not believing in Christ doesn't mean you don't care about others. Even without belief we are creatures of emotion, not of pure reason.
Shit, even a Vulcan can understand that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). Even logic disagrees with you.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Most of the people I deal with day to day - probably around 80% - aren't religious, and don't have a religious vocabulary. But nearly all of them are worried by the gut feeling that they're less than they might be. That gut feeling is what finds its articulation in the vocabulary of sin.
Sure, if that's the vocabulary you provide. But as others are pointing put, sin doesn't just acknowledge that gut feeling. It drags in separation from God for one thing. If that's not pernicious I don't know what is. Oh wait, you have a solution: Jesus has atoned for that gut feeling. We have been saved from the dire eternal consequences of this separation (or can be if we believe the right things) when in fact it's a figment of the church's historical imagination. I call that pernicious too.
And all on the back of a desire to be more than we are and the Church's obsession with preserving its control over how Christians think and talk about God.
quote:
The healing of the pain it causes comes not by telling people to grow up because there's no such thing, but by using the vocabulary of forgiveness and acceptance.
Only you have suggested telling people to grow up is something anyone would consider. Wanting to be more and do better by our own standards requires no forgiveness. Being realistic about who we are and learning to deal with unhelpful expectations and impositions is a life skill to learn. Some of us can attest to the failure of religious assumptions of guilt to help with that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
We can live by a case by case basis. Laws don't stop people doing that they provide repercussions such as prison or fines for when society says the decision someone made was wrong and hurtful to society.
Sure, we can flaunt the law. But my point was the law exists and is a boundary of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a particular society. It has a collective basis, not an individual one. In a secular society it determines what is sinful and what is not.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how we came to be not a doctrine on how we ought to live. It's not something that is enacted.
Current evolutionary is based on survival of the fittest.
If you reject Christian ethics and evolutionary biology, on what basis are you determining your ethics?
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Why save someone else? Most of the time because we have empathy.
Empathy. Compassion. Love of the other.
Where does this come from? It does not come from biology.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I thought I was just rambling on in an uneducated way. I appreciate the compliment.
Your welcome.
I suspect it has something to do with people that are depressed examining themselves and life very closely.
And that probably leads to depression. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The gap between saying I do bad things and could be a nicer person and saying I'm a sinner who will suffer damnation unless I recieve Salvation from God is quite large.
No. Not really. Again it is a matter of definitions.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nobody's saying they're perfect, or they don't do bad stuff. It's all the other baggage that talk of "sin" and "salvation" brings with it that's the problem. I mean, "Salvation" doesn't just mean becoming a nicer person, does it?
Salvation in the Greek means "wholeness".
Being a nicer person may be part of it (love your neighbor) but it's much bigger than that as a concept. It's about wholeness of being here, today, now and freedom. Freedom to become who you are. Knowing that you are loved and the Holy Spirit is with you to direct your life because you have asked it to be.
Yet you have a very fearful, negative image of God (likely because of your upbringing) so that kind of Christianity probably doesn't make much sense to you.
Shame that. I hope one day you will overcome that kind of image of God. It is neither scriptural (on the whole) nor true in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Total bullshit. The choice is not between "a Christian ethic" and "pure evolutionary theory and reason". Not believing in Christ doesn't mean you don't care about others. Even without belief we are creatures of emotion, not of pure reason.
True. So I ask you like I asked George Spigot. Where does this ethic come from?
Is altruism and self sacrifice a natural part of our human existence?
Possibly. And the Christian belief would say that is because we are made in the image of God and we have the qualities of God within us.
Yet the Christian tradition asks us to go beyond our nature and extend it even more in that direction: as Jesus did.
And you could even go so far as to say that a non-Christian (in a Christian society) would have been influenced by Christian tradition and society to feel such a thing and behave in such a way.
That's not to say religious conviction does not provide a powerful reason for killing or violence.
But sometimes it provides the sole compelling reason for refusing violence and self centredness: for being merciful or for seeking peace, for self sacrifice to save the other.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones.
Then it doesn't matter what people believe, only what they do?
If what they believe does not affect what they do then what they believe means nothing.
Faith without works is dead.
You know, that old biblical adage.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
My unhappiness in myself comes from an inability to gain the skills and education needed to get an interesting and well paying job and depression. One is caused by lack of ability and possibly some form of Innumeracy. The other is caused by brain chemistry.
Nothing at all to do with "doing things that are wrong" or "disobeying god".
So, you regret your lack of stimulation in your job and emotional comfort. I know I sound like I am repeating myself, but again, Christianity has nothing for the self satisfied.
quote:
Who said anything about perfection? There is such a concept as "good enough", you know.
Sometimes it feels as if Christianity treats life like an exam where the pass mark is 100%. Get even one question wrong and you fail. Well fuck that. I'll take a perfectly respectable 75 - 80%, I think that's good enough.
Ah, the forces of sensibility and practicality are always cited against the good, Chrisitan Faith. "We aren't so bad you know, what's with all this repenting! Don't you think you're taking this virtue thing a little too far?"
I, for one, am not trying to get anyone to admit they are worse than Hitler or Stalin. Very few people are terribly wicked. But all of us, save one, are at least a litle malicious or hateful or selfish. There are oceans of suffering in this world, and because of these "little sins," sins which you, Marvin, are trying to pretend don't matter, each of us contributes our share to that suffering. A whole lot of injustice in this world has been wreaked by "pretty good" people who just wanted comfortable life, people who were probably not even aware of what they were causing.
So no, I don't think "pretty good" is good enough. The other side of "pretty good" is "a little bit evil." I do not think we have to live with that little bit of sin. There is such a world where one doesn't contribute to the suffering of the world by merely living. I will reflect and repent. This thread was started by an Atheist demanding justification of sin and salvation, and that is what I am doing. A little bit of evil may be OK with you, but not me. Spigot's worldly comforts don't matter- only being a saint matters.
Zach
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
This thread was started by an Atheist demanding justification of sin and salvation
It was? 'Having no faith' is not the same as atheism. And I see no demand, merely an invitation.
quote:
that is what I am doing.
What you're doing is displaying your prejudices. They're pretty ugly ones from my point of view, and they don't make much sense, but they are revealing. I'll leave you to work out what they reveal.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Still on that "You're all liars and dupes" pony, Dave?
Zach
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So, you regret your lack of stimulation in your job and emotional comfort. I know I sound like I am repeating myself, but again, Christianity has nothing for the self satisfied.
No. Not true.
Christianity offers the self satisfied the ability to give thanks to their creator for their existence and the good life they lead.
It does, however, request they try improve the lives of the the less fortunate than themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But all of us, save one, are at least a litle malicious or hateful or selfish. There are oceans of suffering in this world, and because of these "little sins," sins which you, Marvin, are trying to pretend don't matter, each of us contributes our share to that suffering. A whole lot of injustice in this world has been wreaked by "pretty good" people who just wanted comfortable life, people who were probably not even aware of what they were causing.
So no, I don't think "pretty good" is good enough. The other side of "pretty good" is "a little bit evil." I do not think we have to live with that little bit of sin. There is such a world where one doesn't contribute to the suffering of the world by merely living. I will reflect and repent.
A little bit of evil may be OK with you, but not me. Spigot's worldly comforts don't matter- only being a saint matters.
Zach
WTF? You're coming across as tho you think you're a saint Zac.
That you yourself do not contribute to the world's suffering by your very existence in the western (comfortable) world.
That you yourself do not have to live with your own sin, that little bit of evil.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Hate to break it to you buddy, but you aint no saint.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Still on that "You're all liars and dupes" pony, Dave?
As you would know if you don't fit that description, I've said nothing of the sort.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
WTF? You're coming across as tho you think you're a saint Zac.
That you yourself do not contribute to the world's suffering by your very existence in the western (comfortable) world.
That you yourself do not have to live with your own sin, that little bit of evil.
Hate to break it to you buddy, but you aint no saint.
The only way it is possible to contrive that I think I am a saint is if you think I meant the "save one" qualification was me.
It wasn't.
Zach
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
As you would know if you don't fit that description, I've said nothing of the sort.
Also posted by dave...
quote:
For what it's worth, I think sin and salvation are two of the most pernicious ideas still promoted by churches. They're part of the theological smoke-screen Christianity puts out to hide the lack of substance in its traditional explanations.
Excuse me for conflating accusations of making a "Pernicious smoke screen" meant to "Hide a lack of substance" with "Lying."
Zach
[ 21. June 2011, 13:36: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
Sure, we can flaunt the law. But my point was the law exists and is a boundary of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a particular society. It has a collective basis, not an individual one. In a secular society it determines what is sinful and what is not.
I agree with this except your use of the word sinful. Id say In a secular society it determines what is good for society and what is not. (Of course in reality a lot of laws are very benificial for the rich and powerful. Our shoddy defamation laws for instance. So we should be constantly looking to challenge and change some laws where necessary).
Current evolutionary is based on survival of the fittest.
If you reject Christian ethics and evolutionary biology, on what basis are you determining your ethics?
[QB] I'm not rejecting evolutionary biology I'm saying it's a mistake think its involved in making ethical decisions. As far as I can see evolution has nothing to do with ethics.
Survival of the fittest tells us that if a blind fish has a bit of DNA that makes part of it light sensitive and it has the luck to mate with another blind fish that also has a bit of DNA that makes it light sensitive then if its offspring inherit this trait they will have a better chance of survival than the fish that don't carry that trait, (and increase the chance of that trate being past on).
This has nothing to do with ethics. We don't cull short sighted people to improve the human gene pool. Why would we? (I suspect you know this already and I'm just not understanding your point. Sorry if I'm being patronising).
[qb]Empathy. Compassion. Love of the other.
Where does this come from? It does not come from biology.
I have no idea where love comes from.
Empathy? I would hazard a guess that empathy comes from the ability to feel pain and having an imagination, giving us the ability to imagine what it feels like for others to feel pain.
I know what it feels like to be hit or verbally abused. It hurts. So I can imagine what the result would be if I inflicted that hurt on someone else.
[qb]I suspect it has something to do with people that are depressed examining themselves and life very closely.
And that probably leads to depression.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Excuse me for conflating accusations of making a "Pernicious smoke screen" meant to "Hide a lack of substance" with "Lying."
Excuse me for carefully distinguishing between Christianity and any individual person.
You're not synonymous with Christianity, just one representative of one expression among many. Including the Church of England which for now at least still counts me as a baptised and confirmed member.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]George Spigot said: My unhappiness in myself comes from an inability to gain the skills and education needed to get an interesting and well paying job and depression. One is caused by lack of ability and possibly some form of Innumeracy. The other is caused by brain chemistry.
Nothing at all to do with "doing things that are wrong" or "disobeying god".
So, you regret your lack of stimulation in your job and emotional comfort. I know I sound like I am repeating myself, but again, Christianity has nothing for the self satisfied.
-----
Can you unpack this for me I'm not understanding it. I thought I was pointing out that I wasn't
satisfied.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
.... I don't think "pretty good" is good enough. The other side of "pretty good" is "a little bit evil." I do not think we have to live with that little bit of sin. There is such a world where one doesn't contribute to the suffering of the world by merely living. I will reflect and repent. ......
Zach
I admire your resolve but, as has been stated around here only recently, only one Very Special Person has so far ever managed to live without a little bit of sin. The rest of us seem resigned to being at best 'pretty good' and, if we have any conscience at all, constantly running around trying to fix the consequences of our less-than-pretty aspects.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Excuse me for carefully distinguishing between Christianity and any individual person.
You're not synonymous with Christianity, just one representative of one expression among many. Including the Church of England which for now at least still counts me as a baptised and confirmed member.
Oh, the Pathetic Fallacy is the bestest fallacy!Christianity is an abstraction. Christianity cannot put up smoke screen to hide its lack of substance, pernicious or otherwise. So it can only be concluded from your statement that Christians throw up a pernicious smoke screen. If you will read your own posts again, you will find that when I called you out on this before, you said I was fooled by the smokescreen myself.
quote:
Can you unpack this for me I'm not understanding it. I thought I was pointing out that I wasn't
satisfied.
The world the way it is suits you nearly perfectly. The only lack you see is the lack of a few worldly luxuries. In a world where millions and millions are starving, uneducated, or trapped in terror their whole lives, I truly hope you do see yourself as basically satisfied, considering.
Zach
[ 21. June 2011, 14:06: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I admire your resolve but, as has been stated around here only recently, only one Very Special Person has so far ever managed to live without a little bit of sin. The rest of us seem resigned to being at best 'pretty good' and, if we have any conscience at all, constantly running around trying to fix the consequences of our less-than-pretty aspects.
That, my dear, is what repentance is for. We can't be perfect, but we can try. Sin would all be cruel judgement by a hateful God if salvation wasn't really possible.
Zach
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
WTF? You're coming across as tho you think you're a saint Zac.
That you yourself do not contribute to the world's suffering by your very existence in the western (comfortable) world.
That you yourself do not have to live with your own sin, that little bit of evil.
Hate to break it to you buddy, but you aint no saint.
The only way it is possible to contrive that I think I am a saint is if you think I meant the "save one" qualification was me.
It wasn't.
Zach
Ah I see. So you yourself live with that bit of evil and contribute to the world's suffering; just like George Spigot does.
I fail to see your point then. Just an academic exercise was it?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sure, we can flaunt the law. But my point was the law exists and is a boundary of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a particular society. It has a collective basis, not an individual one. In a secular society it determines what is sinful and what is not.
I agree with this except your use of the word sinful. Id say In a secular society it determines what is good for society and what is not.
[/QB]
The church uses sin in just such a context; what is good for society and what is not. The definition of sin will just vary according to different religious traditions; just as laws do in different countries.
When the Ten commandements were given, the were given after God had saved the Israelites from slavery in Egypt (salvation had already occured).
But they were given so that the "people would live long in the land that the lord had given them".
They were injunctions on how to live together best as community.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
(Of course in reality a lot of laws are very benificial for the rich and powerful. Our shoddy defamation laws for instance. So we should be constantly looking to challenge and change some laws where necessary).
Same applies to religion.
Slavery for example was not considered a sin in the New Testament.
It is now amongst Christians.
Divorce and homosexuality were considered a sins in the New Testament.
The lines are a bit blurry on those now.
Women were supposed to be silent in churches according to the New Testament.
That's been challenged now.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Ah I see. So you yourself live with that bit of evil and contribute to the world's suffering; just like George Spigot does.
I fail to see your point then. Just an academic exercise was it?
You really can't see the difference between calling for sainthood and claiming to be a saint?
Zach
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
.... I don't think "pretty good" is good enough. The other side of "pretty good" is "a little bit evil." I do not think we have to live with that little bit of sin. There is such a world where one doesn't contribute to the suffering of the world by merely living. I will reflect and repent. ......
Zach
I admire your resolve but, as has been stated around here only recently, only one Very Special Person has so far ever managed to live without a little bit of sin. The rest of us seem resigned to being at best 'pretty good' and, if we have any conscience at all, constantly running around trying to fix the consequences of our less-than-pretty aspects.
Oh gosh. Look at that. kanucho misunderstood as well. Odd that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ah I see. So you yourself live with that bit of evil and contribute to the world's suffering; just like George Spigot does.
I fail to see your point then. Just an academic exercise was it?
You really can't see the difference between calling for sainthood and claiming to be a saint?
Zach
Sainthood?
Fuck no. I'm no saint nor will I or you likely ever be.
I can see how calling for something better improves life. I just don't think Spigot was railing against that.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Oh gosh. Look at that. kanucho misunderstood as well. Odd that.
I can't see that Kanucho is saying the same thing as you at all.
What, exactly, are you arguing about anyway? I am merely saying that humanity can be better, and therefore we ought to try to be better. I am thinking about human possibility in the highest terms. The alternative I see is that humanity is "good enough" as it is, and there is no point in trying to be any better.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Can you unpack this for me I'm not understanding it. I thought I was pointing out that I wasn't
satisfied.
The world the way it is suits you nearly perfectly. The only lack you see is the lack of a few worldly luxuries. In a world where millions and millions are starving, uneducated, or trapped in terror their whole lives, I truly hope you do see yourself as basically satisfied, considering.
Zach
Ah right now I see what you mean. Thank you.
No I'm not satisfied with the way the world is. To be frank I think the world is in a fucking terrible state with a few bright spots here and there. Am I better off than many? Of course I am. I thought that was so obvious it could go without saying.
So I am neither satisfied with myself nor the world. Or self satisfied as far as I can see.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The gap between saying I do bad things and could be a nicer person and saying I'm a sinner who will suffer damnation unless I recieve Salvation from God is quite large.
No. Not really. Again it is a matter of definitions.
Specifically the definition of "damnation", I imagine.
quote:
Salvation in the Greek means "wholeness".
Being a nicer person may be part of it (love your neighbor) but it's much bigger than that as a concept. It's about wholeness of being here, today, now and freedom. Freedom to become who you are.
As long as "who you are" conforms to the Christian view of "what you should be", right?
quote:
Knowing that you are loved and the Holy Spirit is with you to direct your life because you have asked it to be.
I know nothing of the sort.
quote:
Is altruism and self sacrifice a natural part of our human existence?
No. But caring about others is, and it is due to that caring that concepts such as altruism and self sacrifice come about.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones.
Then it doesn't matter what people believe, only what they do?
If what they believe does not affect what they do then what they believe means nothing.
Faith without works is dead.
You miss my point. What about works without faith? Is the desired endpoint to be somone who avoids doing bad things or to be someone who has faith?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ah right now I see what you mean. Thank you.
No I'm not satisfied with the way the world is. To be frank I think the world is in a fucking terrible state with a few bright spots here and there. Am I better off than many? Of course I am. I thought that was so obvious it could go without saying.
So I am neither satisfied with myself nor the world. Or self satisfied as far as I can see.
Now, is this "fucking terrible state" all a big accident, or is someone responsible? I, personally, see that for much of this terrible state people are responsible. There's sin right there. I haven't been terribly wicked, but I've been a little selfish and hateful myself. And just a litle selfishness and hate multiplied in millions of hearts adds up to a whole lot of wickedness which someone must suffer the effects of- usually the poor and the outcast.
If we believe that it is possible to not give our share of wickedness to the world, and that the world would be a much better place if we all gave up our wicked ways (one tends to use words like this when talking about this sort of thing), then we are talking about the Kingdom of God. We are talking about salvation.
And that is what sin and salvation is about, I think.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Ah I see. So you yourself live with that bit of evil and contribute to the world's suffering; just like George Spigot does.
I fail to see your point then. Just an academic exercise was it?
You really can't see the difference between calling for sainthood and claiming to be a saint?
Zach
Just to clarify before I respond. Are you saying I'm claiming to be a saint?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Christianity is an abstraction. Christianity cannot put up smoke screen to hide its lack of substance, pernicious or otherwise.
Christianity may be only a strand of history but reference to it conveys very real information. Typically that's a traditional trinitarian set of beliefs. When combined with the kind of vehemence and certainty you display it can easily confuse or block thinking about God in ways that make more reliable sense and are arguably also more authentically Christian.
quote:
If you will read your own posts again, you will find that when I called you out on this before, you said I was fooled by the smokescreen myself.
Yes, you seem oblivious to the seriously non-beneficial consequences of the kind of Christianity you're promoting.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Just to clarify before I respond. Are you saying I'm claiming to be a saint?
No, Evensong has gotten it into his/her head that I am claiming to be a saint myself, and I am trying to explain that I am not claiming any such thing.
Zach
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We can't be perfect, but we can try.
Or we can just accept that we'll never be perfect and just do as well as we can.
All that this talk of perfection adds to the mix is feelings of guilt and inadequacy because we can't ever achieve it. Which then gets glibly dismissed by comments such as "that, my dear, is what repentance is for" - oh look, Christianity providing the perfect solution to a problem it created.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Christianity may be only a strand of history but reference to it conveys very real information. Typically that's a traditional trinitarian set of beliefs. When combined with the kind of vehemence and certainty you display it can easily confuse or block thinking about God in ways that make more reliable sense and are arguably also more authentically Christian... Yes, you seem oblivious to the seriously non-beneficial consequences of the kind of Christianity you're promoting.
It follows that a person is either aware of this pernicious strain, and is thus a pernicious person trying to hide the facts, or that a person is fooled into thinking it isn't there, and is in that case a dupe. Liars. And Dupes. Absolutely no room for sincerity and sober thought there.
Zach
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am merely saying that humanity can be better, and therefore we ought to try to be better. I am thinking about human possibility in the highest terms.
The problem is the fact that talk of sin and salvation goes much further than simply saying we should try to be a bit better - it goes all the way to saying that we're filthy maggots who deserve to be eternally damned for not being perfect.
quote:
The alternative I see is that humanity is "good enough" as it is, and there is no point in trying to be any better.
I'd settle for saying that humanity isn't doing so badly that it deserves to burn in hell. So bad that there's room for improvement, yes. So bad that it needs Salvation to avoid The Pit, no.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is altruism and self sacrifice a natural part of our human existence?
No. But caring about others is, and it is due to that caring that concepts such as altruism and self sacrifice come about.
I'd go for a straight 'yes' answer there. What you've done with your 'no-but' is define altruism.
:-/
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
quote:
I'm no saint nor will I or you likely ever be.
You're both Christians, yeah?
So you are both saints in the NT sense.
Obviously if you wanted to get a cause started up in Rome you need to die and do miracles
etc but...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The problem is the fact that talk of sin and salvation goes much further than simply saying we should try to be a bit better - it goes all the way to saying that we're filthy maggots who deserve to be eternally damned for not being perfect... I'd settle for saying that humanity isn't doing so badly that it deserves to burn in hell. So bad that there's room for improvement, yes. So bad that it needs Salvation to avoid The Pit, no.
I can hardly help that you are imposing concepts of damnation I never proposed on what I am arguing. Damnation is not the alternative to salvation. Sin is.
But feeling bad for not being perfect? Only to those that are restless and really believe it is possible. Those satisfied with humanity as it is will just feel indignant or angry. "Aren't those Christians taking this salvation thing a little too far? Why can't they just be happy with what they have? It's all very presumptuous to presume the possibility of perfection you know!"
It is, on the other hand, "The best possible news to the melancholy soul." We aren't born to die- salvation is possible.
Zach
[ 21. June 2011, 15:04: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It follows that a person is either aware of this pernicious strain, and is thus a pernicious person trying to hide the facts, or that a person is fooled into thinking it isn't there, and is in that case a dupe. Liars. And Dupes. Absolutely no room for sincerity and sober thought there.
Nope, that doesn't follow. Being sincerely mistaken is one thing; being wilfully blind to how what you say comes across is another. We may all be wrong, but bluster and arrogance rarely adds anything useful to a discussion.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Nope, that doesn't follow. Being sincerely mistaken is one thing; being wilfully blind to how what you say comes across is another. We may all be wrong, but bluster and arrogance rarely adds anything useful to a discussion.
Oh, but I am aware. Christianity raises up before it a man nailed to a cross, suffering for the sins of the world. We build tall buildings in the middle of every town and ring bells and fill the air with incense. We haul the Cross around on our necks and before us in processions and scriptures are always on our lips to remind us and everyone to never forget what is really important- Virtue and truth and God pursued to the very end. To those that want nothing more than a quiet life with a nice family and a little comfort, to be basically OK, that sign can only be hateful.
However would society ever get along if we all tried to live like that man? Very easily answered- it couldn't. Only another society could get along like that.
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zach82:
Originally posted by George Spigot: Ah right now I see what you mean. Thank you.
No I'm not satisfied with the way the world is. To be frank I think the world is in a fucking terrible state with a few bright spots here and there. Am I better off than many? Of course I am. I thought that was so obvious it could go without saying.
So I am neither satisfied with myself nor the world. Or self satisfied as far as I can see.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, is this "fucking terrible state" all a big accident, or is someone responsible?
Well some of the bad stuff is caused by natural desasters. Earthquakes, tsunamis etc but lets ignore those for the sake of argument.
I, personally, see that for much of this terrible state people are responsible.
Ok I'm with you so far.
There's sin right there.
Here's where we disagree. This point has been brought up before but not answered. I'd say that people cause a terrible state by being violent, greedy and selfish. In short doing bad things. But doing bad things doesn't = sin. Doing bad things = doing bad things. Sin implies a whole load of extra stuff to do with god and religion having to be added to the mix.
I haven't been terribly wicked, but I've been a little selfish and hateful myself. And just a litle selfishness and hate multiplied in millions of hearts adds up to a whole lot of wickedness which someone must suffer the effects of- usually the poor and the outcast.
I not sure I agree. Petty things like....I don't know, being mean to your brother or sister, spraying graffiti on someones property, stealing a small amount of money from work, (I'm not saying that's what you were aluding to these are just examples. All these small wrong things don't somehow magically become the big evils in the world, (war, terrorism, Murder), that we all care about.
Yes if everybody was mean in small ways to everybody else the world would be even more unlikable but you make it sould like theres some sort of supernatural, cosmic karma machine that siphons up all the little bits of bad in the world and spits out big blobs of bad.[/QB]
If we believe that it is possible to not give our share of wickedness to the world, and that the world would be a much better place if we all gave up our wicked ways (one tends to use words like this when talking about this sort of thing), then we are talking about the Kingdom of God. We are talking about salvation.
Well yes the world would be a better place if we all gave up our wicked ways. But then you make a leap and add the words "Kingdom of God" on to the end.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
To those that want nothing more than a quiet life with a nice family and a little comfort, to be basically OK, that sign can only be hateful.
Not necessarily hateful, no, just incomprehensible. A curiosity. A religion of the past, but of the kind that inspires fanaticism. Not all of Christianity was ever like that, I'm fairly sure. Nor need it be in the future.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Here's where we disagree. This point has been brought up before but not answered. I'd say that people cause a terrible state by being violent, greedy and selfish. In short doing bad things. But doing bad things doesn't = sin. Doing bad things = doing bad things. Sin implies a whole load of extra stuff to do with god and religion having to be added to the mix.
Sin is just a word that means nothing outside of context. I've given my definition of it, so I can't see why you are letting other definitions bother you. I might add "Failing to do what one ought to do" and "Vice given free reign to produce particular sins," to our working defintion, but it doesn't seem expansions like that are what is bothering you.
quote:
Yes if everybody was mean in small ways to everybody else the world would be even more unlikable but you make it sould like theres some sort of supernatural, cosmic karma machine that siphons up all the little bits of bad in the world and spits out big blobs of bad.
I have seen a person driven to the blackest depression because of little acts of teasing from everyone over years and years. I girl at one of my jobs commited suicide because she felt so lonely. Western dependance on cheap consumer goods results in Chinese children being born deformed because of lead poisoning. Teasing a person or not calling them or buying a cheap pan are such little sins. The consequences make one's heart break.
quote:
Well yes the world would be a better place if we all gave up our wicked ways. But then you make a leap and add the words "Kingdom of God" on to the end.
Really, you need to open your heart to a little poetry. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Zach
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Now that I've gotten to musing more than reasoning, I'll challenge the "Humanity is basically OK" hypothesis.
Look up the Milgram Experiment. The vast majority of people, basically OK people one supposes, would torture a man to death just because a man in a white lab coat told them to.
Then there's the Stanford Prison Experiment. Perfectly nice people, simply by being given the opportunity to humiliate and torture their fellow human beings, turned into utter savages in the span of a week.
Perfectly OK indeed!
Zach
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have seen a person driven to the blackest depression because of little acts of teasing from everyone over years and years. I girl at one of my jobs commited suicide because she felt so lonely. Western dependance on cheap consumer goods results in Chinese children being born deformed because of lead poisoning. Teasing a person or not calling them or buying a cheap pan are such little sins. The consequences make one's heart break.
You make a very good point there. I can see what you mean now.
quote:
Well yes the world would be a better place if we all gave up our wicked ways. But then you make a leap and add the words "Kingdom of God" on to the end.
Really, you need to open your heart to a little poetry.
Zach [/QB]
We laugh, but inept is our laughter,
We should weep, and weep sore,
Who are shattered like glass and thereafter
Remoulded no more.
-Abul Ala Al-Ma’arri
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Now that I've gotten to musing more than reasoning, I'll challenge the "Humanity is basically OK" hypothesis.
Look up the Milgram Experiment. The vast majority of people, basically OK people one supposes, would torture a man to death just because a man in a white lab coat told them to.
Then there's the Stanford Prison Experiment. Perfectly nice people, simply by being given the opportunity to humiliate and torture their fellow human beings, turned into utter savages in the span of a week.
Perfectly OK indeed!
Zach
Again just for the record I agree that humanity is not ok.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can hardly help that you are imposing concepts of damnation I never proposed on what I am arguing. Damnation is not the alternative to salvation. Sin is.
This sounds like quite a departure from orthodox Christianity.
quote:
But feeling bad for not being perfect? Only to those that are restless and really believe it is possible. Those satisfied with humanity as it is will just feel indignant or angry. "Aren't those Christians taking this salvation thing a little too far? Why can't they just be happy with what they have? It's all very presumptuous to presume the possibility of perfection you know!"
Not presumptuous, but bad. If you know perfection is impossible then to teach that it is attainable is to deliberately set people up for a fall. Or for a surfeit of guilt at not achieving it.
quote:
We aren't born to die- salvation is possible.
I thought you were arguing that salvation means not doing bad things (i.e. not sinning). Now you're claiming salvation is from death?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Again just for the record I agree that humanity is not ok.
I know, but there are others on this thread that don't agree.
Zach
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can hardly help that you are imposing concepts of damnation I never proposed on what I am arguing. Damnation is not the alternative to salvation. Sin is.
This sounds like quite a departure from orthodox Christianity.
quote:
But feeling bad for not being perfect? Only to those that are restless and really believe it is possible. Those satisfied with humanity as it is will just feel indignant or angry. "Aren't those Christians taking this salvation thing a little too far? Why can't they just be happy with what they have? It's all very presumptuous to presume the possibility of perfection you know!"
Not presumptuous, but bad. If you know perfection is impossible then to teach that it is attainable is to deliberately set people up for a fall. Or for a surfeit of guilt at not achieving it.
quote:
We aren't born to die- salvation is possible.
I thought you were arguing that salvation means not doing bad things (i.e. not sinning). Now you're claiming salvation is from death?
Oh, sin is man's ruin. It's the "sickness unto death."
And I have hope of salvation only because I really think it is possible, in Christ. The message of the Cross only seems hopeless if we start to think we will have cling to it with only our own strength.
Zach
[ 21. June 2011, 15:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, sin is man's ruin. It's the "sickness unto death."
The only thing making me sick to death is the constant messages from churches that I'm a wicked sinner and should repent and cry out for forgiveness.
Without such messages I (and no doubt many others) would feel far better about existence. What's wrong with at least saying that there may be bad points, but we're basically doing all right? What's wrong with dropping that pass mark a little?
quote:
And I have hope of salvation only because I really think it is possible, in Christ.
...it's just that (apart from Christ) nobody has ever done it, right?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, sin is man's ruin. It's the "sickness unto death."
The only thing making me sick to death is the constant messages from churches that I'm a wicked sinner and should repent and cry out for forgiveness.
Without such messages I (and no doubt many others) would feel far better about existence. What's wrong with at least saying that there may be bad points, but we're basically doing all right? What's wrong with dropping that pass mark a little?
quote:
And I have hope of salvation only because I really think it is possible, in Christ.
...it's just that (apart from Christ) nobody has ever done it, right?
That we have sinned cannot be helped. That we can turn away and sin no more can be. The saints in heaven are a testament of human possibility. Even for the departed all is not lost, which is what purgatory is all about.
The way people go on, you would think feeling guilty is the most awful thing in the world, a thing to be absolutely avoided at all cost. Like pain or privation. Is happiness really just feeling wonderful every moment of every day? Sometimes we ought to feel guilty. Virtue means doing what is right, no matter how much it hurts, or how much we want to do otherwise.
But Christian guilt is not offered only to crush the human soul. We don't even consider guilt redemptive; not sinning and doing what we ought is redemptive. The far greather peril we see is spending one's whole life seeking after things that don't really matter, missing out altogether on the things that do.
Zach
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Without such messages I (and no doubt many others) would feel far better about existence. What's wrong with at least saying that there may be bad points, but we're basically doing all right? What's wrong with dropping that pass mark a little?[/QB]
Presumably because not everyone agrees that we are doing all right.
But, you know, if there is no God then perhaps we are doing fine. The universe doesn't give a shit about us. It makes no demands of us and has no standards to live up to. We just have to make a judgement call. The pass mark is, well, whatever the hell we want it to be. Perhaps it's even whatever we get away with on a corporate or an individual level.
If there is a God, one interested in things like judgement and new creation, then things change.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The way people go on, you would think feeling guilty is the most awful thing in the world, a thing to be absolutely avoided at all cost. Like pain or privation. Is happiness really just feeling wonderful every moment of every day? Sometimes we ought to feel guilty. Virtue means doing what is right, no matter how much it hurts, or how much we want to do otherwise.
But Christian guilt is not offered only to crush the human soul. We don't even consider guilt redemptive; not sinning and doing what we ought is redemptive. The far greather peril we see is spending one's whole life seeking after things that don't really matter, missing out altogether on the things that do.
Zach
If guilt isn't redemptive (as I agree) what positive purpose does it serve? A bit of hurting we imbue ourselves with in a pathetic attempt to empathise with other people we've hurt?
As you say, virtue means doing what is right. That in turn means recognising and acting on your nobler instincts, not wallowing in how crap your baser ones are.
I do wonder if the cross is an ill-chosen symbol for what it's supposed to inspire in us. Displaying Christ in the humiliating and excruciating position representatives of the human race subjected him to seems less to draw us to godliness and more to remind us of just what a bunch of utter bastards we are. Its appeal is more to guilt than hope.
[ 21. June 2011, 16:36: Message edited by: kankucho ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll challenge the "Humanity is basically OK" hypothesis.
Humanity is what it is: a species of animal that's evolved the capacity for self-conscious thought. That gives us the desire to invent standards for ourselves because with self-consciousness has come language and the means to express what we imagine - to create. Just like - 'in the image of' - God the creator and sustainer of the universe on who we total depend for our very existence.
Humanity is precisely perfectly OK - as humanity. Just as dogs are as dogs. The problem, the guilt, the desire to offload responsibility, comes when we forget our dependence on God and delude ourselves into thinking we are more than we are.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
If guilt isn't redemptive (as I agree) what positive purpose does it serve? A bit of hurting we imbue ourselves with in a pathetic attempt to empathise with other people we've hurt?
As you say, virtue means doing what is right. That in turn means recognising and acting on your nobler instincts, not wallowing in how crap your baser ones are.
I do wonder if the cross is an ill-chosen symbol for what it's supposed to inspire in us. Displaying Christ in the humiliating and excruciating position representatives of the human race subjected him to seems less to draw us to godliness and more to remind us of just what a bunch of utter bastards we are. Its appeal is more to guilt than hope.
I don't see why acknowledging guilt = "wallowing" in it. guilt is a recognition of having done wrong. in order to do better next time, you have to recognise what you did wrong before. not jsut "this was against the rules, and I got caught" but "this was a bad thing to do. I did it. I don't belive I should have done it, therefore I will try not to do it again". if you feel no guilt for bad actions,what is the incentive to do better, other than imposition of some external punishment? I think it's better to strive for improvement6 becuase you feel guilty than to do so becuase someone is threatening you with eternal damnation (and yes,I know that happens in some Christina circles, but that serves rather to suport my point than negate it.. because they are clearly not relying on an internal sense of having done wrong, which is what guilt really is or should be).
I had a post all written up earlier in defense of the concept of perfection.. and then accidentally deleted it, which I always take to be a sign that I shodulnt' post it. so I won't try to re-create. but my overall point is that if you viwe the whole sin/salvation/guilt/redemption gamish as a relationship, as a give and take, as a way of striving perpetually for improvement, then I can't see how anyone could be in favor of lowering the bar. of course, if you view it as a series of rules, externally mandated without any inner buy in, with severe (and again, externally imposed) penalties for non compliance, then yeah, I can see why one might be in favor of a milder standard. is it about self improvement/striving to be more like God, or is about getting a checkmark in every box so you can hang the completed list on your fridge and pat yourself on the back for having completed the course?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
For me, it's kind of like A.A.'s first step: you have to recognize and admit there's a problem before you can do anything about it. A.A. uses the words "character defect" to talk about these things; perhaps it would be better to use different language. "Sin" does seem to conjure up the idea of "bad, bad, bad" - instead of "I've got some issues I want to address."
I think moralism is maybe at fault here. Rather than just accept the idea that we all have defects that prevent us from being the people we could be and would like to be - i.e., that we are all "sinners" - moralism just gets in the way.
James Alison, onetime Evangelical but now Catholic, says this:
quote:
Then again, one of the reliefs about coming into the Church was precisely that it was not ethics-obsessed. I remember, a year or so after becoming a Catholic, realising that one of the first things I had to learn about being a Catholic – bizarrely – was how to sin. In the world of my formation, being good was obligatory and boring. And sinning, being bad, was a terrible letting down of the side. A sort of failure of English gentlemanliness. This meant, in fact, a constant struggle to live up to “being good”, whatever that meant. Curiously, a strong belief in “Justification by faith alone” seemed to have as its psychological counterpart an extreme need to justify oneself. As a Catholic I had to learn that sin is boringly normal, and that what is exciting is being pulled into learning new things, called virtues, which are ways in which a goodness which is not ours becomes connatural with us, and that this is something of an adventure. I had to learn how not to be so concerned with whether I was getting things right or wrong, but to learn instead to relax into the given-ness of things. I can scarcely tell you how strange it sounds in retrospect, but I was discovering that it is part of the mercy of the Catholic faith that those of us who are infected by spiritual haughtiness find ourselves being lowered slowly and gently into the mud, the slime, of being one of ordinary humanity, and learning that it is this ordinary humanity which is loved as it is. If there are to be any diamonds, they will be found amidst the clay, and as the outworking of the pressures in the clay, not perched on high, on stalks, trying to avoid being infected by so much common carbon.
The idea is to get an accurate picture of ourselves, I think, and to try to get an idea of how to clear away the things that block us. We all have blocks and blind spots and faults and defects (or, perhaps put another way, "sins"); it's not possible to be human, I don't think, and not have them. So in this sense, I don't know why "sin" equates to "bad, bad, bad" - since it's just an ordinary condition of living life as a human being.
And in this sense, the ides of Christ "dying for the sins of the world" can bring a kind of cosmic sense of relief to people - that God has been among us and forgave us even at death. It does do this, for some people, I know. They can at last forgive themselves for their sins, large and small, once they think in these terms. This isn't what works for me, personally - there are other ways to view the story, from my point of view - but it does work for other people.
[ 21. June 2011, 16:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I do wonder if the cross is an ill-chosen symbol for what it's supposed to inspire in us. Displaying Christ in the humiliating and excruciating position representatives of the human race subjected him to seems less to draw us to godliness and more to remind us of just what a bunch of utter bastards we are. Its appeal is more to guilt than hope.
well, depends on whether you are focusing on what THEY did to Him, or on waht He did for us. He died for us. we all die, many of us peacefully, but many (preahps historically speakin most) die in pain and suffering. But one way or another we die. He didn't have do. but He did anyway. it's not about the pain and suffering (for me, anyway). it's that He did something He didn't have to, for us. to reconsile us with Himself. not jsut to forgive us.. becuae He could do that without dying. no, it was to BECOME one of us, to subject HImself not just to death, but to life as well. The Sacrifice made for us wasn't just the Passion and death. it started at the moment of incarnation. ad it wasn't to cancel out some debt, but to become ONE with us in a way that no other action could accomplish (to become one He had to, well, BECOME ONE).
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
For me, the cross is the most radical (and counter-intuitive) symbol possible.
Christians worship a God we believe chose to "empty himself" of divinity and to incarnate as an ordinary human being - and who was executed as a criminal.
It turns whatever we think of as "victory" completely on its head. It says directly, and at a very visceral level, that God identifies with those who suffer and who are defeated in the world's terms.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
For me, the cross is the most radical (and counter-intuitive) symbol possible.
Christians worship a God we believe chose to "empty himself" of divinity and to incarnate as an ordinary human being - and who was executed as a criminal.
It turns whatever we think of as "victory" completely on its head. It says directly, and at a very visceral level, that God identifies with those who suffer and who are defeated in the world's terms.
Short quote from J R R Tolkien "The Hobbit" source link
quote:
Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway.
Those who have it rough - that is, those who suffer - are generally more interesting than those who have it easy - although we do tend to prefer a happy ending, in spite of our preference for unhappy middles.
Yes, the Bible plays into that. But then so too does a lot of other mythology, literature, and recorded history. Different people seem to have different opinions about the meaning of that - assuming they think it means anything at all.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
If guilt isn't redemptive (as I agree) what positive purpose does it serve? A bit of hurting we imbue ourselves with in a pathetic attempt to empathise with other people we've hurt?
As you say, virtue means doing what is right. That in turn means recognising and acting on your nobler instincts, not wallowing in how crap your baser ones are.
I do wonder if the cross is an ill-chosen symbol for what it's supposed to inspire in us. Displaying Christ in the humiliating and excruciating position representatives of the human race subjected him to seems less to draw us to godliness and more to remind us of just what a bunch of utter bastards we are. Its appeal is more to guilt than hope.
I am not arguing that it serves a purpose. One feels guilty at his moral failings and the proper way to assuage guilt is to repent, try to right the wrongs produced, and try not to do it again. Guilt is simply something that is- it doesn't serve a purpose at all.
What I am arguing against is Dave and Marvin's apparent idea that guilt must absolutely be avoided, and the only way to do that is to lower standards so low that everyone is perfectly good just the way they are. The evil of sainthood, for Dave and Marvin, is that its mere existence makes people feel guilty.
Zach
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I am arguing against is Dave and Marvin's apparent idea that guilt must absolutely be avoided, and the only way to do that is to lower standards so low that everyone is perfectly good just the way they are. The evil of sainthood, for Dave and Marvin, is that its mere existence makes people feel guilty.
Zach
Well, I'm keen on Anyuta's notion that it might serve as a means of forward propulsion. If we're lumbered with it, it makes sense to put it to some productive use (when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade). I fear that in many people's reality - perhaps the majority - guilt is a dead weight - a morbid propensity to cry over spilt milk.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In that regard it is no different from any other emotion. It can be a stumblingblock or it can lead us to new life. In fact, I rather doubt it is even a very good tool for that task, though I believe it is inevitable if we are going to presume so much as to go looking for the narrow gate.
The Cross can be about guilt. "Look for what the Lord has to suffer for us." But that isn't even close to the whole story. It also says that death is not the sickness unto death- sin is. If we stop worrying about all that dross, the Cross is light and life.
Zach
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones. Whatever moves people in that direction helps the world become a better and happier place.
That sounds great. The problems come when what one religion says is good conflicts with what anothers religion says is good.
Yes, that's the problem. Is it insoluble?
Certainly it's not insoluble on an individual basis. You just have to choose.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones.
Then it doesn't matter what people believe, only what they do?
You mean they aren't connected? Beliefs matter!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I wondered if anyone apart from me sees a difference between guilt and shame? I think it is true that a conscious social process of fostering guilt as a means of control is pretty pernicious and I also think it is true that that kind of process has indeed been used within Christian churches. I'd say that is something to be ashamed of. It seems to me to have caused a lot of damage. I've met folks who suffered under that kind of governance; some of them were afraid of their own shadows.
But on the other hand, isn't a sense of shame useful? The recognition that our actions or inactions have caused needless pain and suffering to others; the kind of coming to our senses that implies. Of course it is very painful to experience that. But lessons can be learned, attempts at restitution made. If a sense of shame arises as a result of personal conviction, it can be both a helpful spur to corrective action and to the learning of important lessons.
I guess there is a difference between saying to someone else, or hearing from someone else, "you should be ashamed of yourself" and the personal recognition that "I am ashamed of myself - and I deserve to be". The phrase "cut to the heart" seems to me to describe a psychological truth, not a reflex conditioned by someone else's values.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Yes, the Bible plays into that. But then so too does a lot of other mythology, literature, and recorded history.
Well, one difference between the Christian story and other stories - the mythologies and literature that I guess you're talking about - is that it's God at the heart of it, not just a human being.
In Greek mythology, the gods came to earth, all right - mainly to toy with people (and rape the women they desired). In Christianity, God came to redeem the human race by taking on our nature and by living and dying as one of us.
Since we're going with quotes, how about this one, from Heinrich Heine?
quote:
"So all day long until the sun went down
they spent in feasting, and the measured feast
matched well their hearts' desire.
So did the flawless harp held by Apollo
and heavenly songs in choiring antiphon
that all the Muses sang. [taken by Heine from the Vulgate]
"Then suddenly a pale, bloodstained Jew came panting in, with a crown of thorns on his head and a great wooden cross over his shoulder; and he threw the cross on to the gods' high table, so that the golden goblets trembled, and the gods fell silent and turned pale, and became paler and paler, till at last they entirely dissolved into mist.
"... Anyone who sees his god suffering finds it easier to endure his own pain. The merry gods of the past, who felt no pain, did not know either how poor tortured human beings feel, and a poor person in desperation could have no real confidence in them. They were holiday gods; people danced around them merrily, and could only thank them. For this reason they never received whole-hearted love. To receive whole-hearted love one must suffer. Compassion is the last sacrament of love; it may be love itself. Therefore of all the gods who ever lived, Christ is the god who has been loved the most."
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I am arguing against is Dave and Marvin's apparent idea that guilt must absolutely be avoided, and the only way to do that is to lower standards so low that everyone is perfectly good just the way they are. The evil of sainthood, for Dave and Marvin, is that its mere existence makes people feel guilty.
Is that what Dave and Marvin really think?
My view is that if sainthood is a problem because it makes people feel guilty about how non-virtuous they are, then sports tournament trophy award ceremonies are also a problem because they make people feel guilty about what lazy fat couch-potato slobs they are.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Since we're going with quotes, how about this one, from Heinrich Heine?
A transparently colonial straw man, in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, one difference between the Christian story and other stories - the mythologies and literature that I guess you're talking about - is that it's God at the heart of it, not just a human being.
Another way of looking at it is that there isn't any need to make a difference. Suffering is a universal reality - but the fact that we all seem to find stories about it interesting is also a universal reality. So, perhaps that's a sign that our meaning in life is defined, at least in part, by the challenges we face - and that this is perhaps all part of providence's plan. Assuming that providence exists, of course.
If there's one thing that strikes me as more weird about Christian behaviour than anything else, it's their penchant for trying to prove that their culture and traditions are somehow inherently superior to those of the other guy. Sometimes, it seems like everything else they say about their theology hangs around their desire to prove that one point.
But it's a point that I simply don't see! Didn't our experience of 20th century mechanised warfare rather make the point that pretences of cultural superiority generally aren't such a good idea?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Since we're going with quotes, how about this one, from Heinrich Heine?
A transparently colonial straw man, in my opinion.
You know, I really have absolutely no idea what is meant by this statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, one difference between the Christian story and other stories - the mythologies and literature that I guess you're talking about - is that it's God at the heart of it, not just a human being.
Another way of looking at it is that there isn't any need to make a difference. Suffering is a universal reality - but the fact that we all seem to find stories about it interesting is also a universal reality. So, perhaps that's a sign that our meaning in life is defined, at least in part, by the challenges we face - and that this is perhaps all part of providence's plan. Assuming that providence exists, of course.
If there's one thing that strikes me as more weird about Christian behaviour than anything else, it's their penchant for trying to prove that their culture and traditions are somehow inherently superior to those of the other guy. Sometimes, it seems like everything else they say about their theology hangs around their desire to prove that one point.
But it's a point that I simply don't see! Didn't our experience of 20th century mechanised warfare rather make the point that pretences of cultural superiority generally aren't such a good idea?
Is all this supposed to follow from the above? It looks like nothing so much as a bunch of assertions without any sort of support for them.
I said nothing about "culture"; you did. We were talking about religion and theology, as far as I could tell. Which "culture" did you think you were referring to?
And since "culture" is your own addition here, the rest of this post is pretty much gibberish. Christianity exists in every culture in the world as far as I know, and has taken hold in all cultures since its inception. In fact, that's in black and white, right in the sourcebook: "There is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female in Christ Jesus...."
[ 21. June 2011, 21:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
So anyway: how about responding to some of what I've actually said, rather than making shit up?
It might actually be true, you know, that the Greek Gods (for instance) were assholes. They really did rape human women, in the stories, you know. And so Jesus really is a better answer, for human women at least, you know.
No rapes, at least. Gee, lucky us....
[ 21. June 2011, 21:33: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
If there's one thing that strikes me as more weird about Christian behaviour than anything else, it's their penchant for trying to prove that their culture and traditions are somehow inherently superior to those of the other guy.
Of course we think Jesus is better. If we thought Buddha were better we would be Buddhists.
Zach
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
James Alison, onetime Evangelical but now Catholic, says this...
That's interesting. It also well represents the process of moving out of evangelicalism into a broadly secular world view. Maybe Catholicism makes for an easier transition for some but for me anyway without that the effect has been similar.
quote:
I don't know why "sin" equates to "bad, bad, bad" - since it's just an ordinary condition of living life as a human being.
Yes. Calling it sin drags in the worst associations of oppressive religion. When in fact it's only an essential aspect of our humanity we have to work to rise above, the underlying foundation from which we have the potential to grow.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What I am arguing against is Dave and Marvin's apparent idea that guilt must absolutely be avoided, and the only way to do that is to lower standards so low that everyone is perfectly good just the way they are. The evil of sainthood, for Dave and Marvin, is that its mere existence makes people feel guilty.
Is that what Dave and Marvin really think?
Um, no, of course not. It's certainly no logical reflection of what either of us have posted. Whatever the reason for the misrepresentation, Zach doesn't seem to appreciate that we only become whole as we accept that we alone as individuals and communities must deal with the consequences of our failings. God simply gives us time and space to learn and grow as a result.
[ 21. June 2011, 22:05: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't know why "sin" equates to "bad, bad, bad" - since it's just an ordinary condition of living life as a human being.
Yes. Calling it sin drags in the worst associations of oppressive religion. When in fact it's only an essential aspect of our humanity we have to work to rise above, the underlying foundation from which we have the potential to grow.
Yes, I like how you put this.
It would be nice if we had a better word or phrase for this aspect, like "self-destructive tendencies" or "anti-social behavior."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Actually, sin is also about God too.
He doesn't sit 'up there' while we scream at each other and do nasty things and engage in 'anti-social behaviour'. He doesn't sit there like some headmaster, watching the boys fighting in the playground. He doesn't see sin as merely something we do to ourselves.
Sin is an offence, an affront to God. Sin is dishonouring to him - it goes against what he has plnned for us to be, it strikes at the heart of our relationship with him and separates us from him.
We cannot say that sin is nothing to do with God and that he should therefore just forgive our weakness and self-destructive tendencies. He is grieved.
David prayed, 'against thee alone I have I sinned.' It's when we realise that our sins are against God himself that we realise we need his forgiveness and salvation. The wonderful thing is that he has provided the means.
It is our arrogance that throws that means of grace back at him and says no.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Does it really matter what label we apply to sin? I accept the kind of portmanteau argument that Dave Marshall has been using, but does that matter in this discussion? Sin in its original context meant missing the mark, failing to meet a standard, moral turpitude.
If I understood George Spigot right earlier, he seemed to me to recognise that this is a common human failing, regardless of where we draw the line personally. Christian belief has always been that it's something we are stuck with; without the help of God, we'll continue to be stuck with it. Also that with the help of God we will still struggle with it, but we can do better.
Put in this light, the precursor of salvation is an acceptance of this kind of stuckness. The way this resolves for me is that some folks believe our autonomy is enough; indeed it is all we've got, and the most important thing is to take complete responsibility for our own lives. In their minds, the promise of salvation, the promise of God's help, is a kind of delusion that actually gets in the way of acceptance of personal responsibility. That seems to me to be a denial of the possibility that God can help.
Of course, if we don't believe in a helping God, the whole argument becomes nonsensical. Essentially we see ourselves as ultimately "on our own" with the moral challenges of living, regardless of how helpful other people may be.
So, leaving outside for the moment the vexed atonement questions (substitution, example, Christus victor etc) about which we do not seem ever likely to agree, maybe George's original question boils down to just that. Where does our help come from?
I'm happy to be considered deluded by holding to the belief that in this ongoing challenge of seeking to live well, my help comes from the Lord who made heaven and earth. I can sing along with the Psalmist.
I have a lot of respect for those who emphasise the importance of taking personal responsibility for our lives, and avoiding easy paths, or quack nostrums, or cheap grace. I guess it is my testimony that being a Christian pilgrim is that "well, actually, it really hasn't been like any of the above". I have some sense of Divine help in the midst of the all the challenges, seeking some answers to the general question "how then shall I live". I don't recognise any easy pathway, or quack nostrum, or cheap grace as corresponding to what it's been like to live as a Christian.
Maybe I'm too Pelagian for the Calvinists, and too orthodox for the Pelagians? Semi-Pelagian is probably as good as it gets for me as a matter of theology. Even that seems a pretty approximate way of describing many years of experience and reflection.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
One of the things I'm seeing throughout the thread is that the paradigm that people are using to define "sin" is distinctly western; that is you are defining sin in terms of actions that are inherently right or wrong... a very analytical and legal mindset regarding "sin."
In the world there are currently three recognized sin paradigms (and with post-modernism another is expected to emerge): right vs. wrong (western), honor vs. shame (eastern), and power (mostly found in tribal cultures, but also elsewhere).
Most western literature discusses Christ coming to take away our sins, to forgive us of what we've done, to legally absolve us of our transgressions.
But in the Eastern mindset Christ came to restore honor to his children. In the East, honor and shame are not necessarily wrapped up in "doing good or bad things" but rather in managing public perception of one's self. It is the idea of being able to walk through the village square with your head held high. That is why in some Eastern cultures killing is considered justifiable if it restores honor.
The Power paradigm of sin revolves around the idea of spiritual power. While we are "in sin" the devil and his minions have power over us. They can hurt us, they can manipulate us, and in extreme cases enter our bodies and possess us. Christ frees us from that and grants us power over them. This paradigm is the most scoffed at by westerners because we always have a more 'rational' explanation for things.
The truth is that the Bible addresses each of these paradigms, and each is also found outside of the Bible. Tribal people who have never heard of Christianity seek power over the spiritual realm. Likewise people in the far East who have never read the Bible still feel shame and long for honor.
Christ came to save all men from what they already suffer, not to create a list of things to save them from.
edit: Xposted with barnabas
[ 22. June 2011, 07:48: Message edited by: irish_lord99 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I guess the "power paradigm" is one of the attempts to get behind the question "what is it that makes us stuck?". Interesting post, irish_lord99, food for thought there. "Missing the mark" leading to "loss of honour in the eyes of others". Crucifixion, inter-alia, is also a dishonouring, de-humanising, despising act.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
But, you know, if there is no God then perhaps we are doing fine. The universe doesn't give a shit about us. It makes no demands of us and has no standards to live up to. We just have to make a judgement call. The pass mark is, well, whatever the hell we want it to be. Perhaps it's even whatever we get away with on a corporate or an individual level.
Sounds wonderful.
quote:
If there is a God, one interested in things like judgement and new creation, then things change.
Yes. They get much worse.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
...they are clearly not relying on an internal sense of having done wrong, which is what guilt really is or should be.
If I truly had "an internal sense of doing wrong" about something, I wouldn't have done it in the first place.
quote:
if you viwe the whole sin/salvation/guilt/redemption gamish as a relationship, as a give and take, as a way of striving perpetually for improvement, then I can't see how anyone could be in favor of lowering the bar. of course, if you view it as a series of rules, externally mandated without any inner buy in, with severe (and again, externally imposed) penalties for non compliance, then yeah, I can see why one might be in favor of a milder standard.
Have a guess which one I see it as. Hint: there ain't no "give and take" in relationships with God - we do all the giving and He does all the taking.
quote:
is it about self improvement/striving to be more like God, or is about getting a checkmark in every box so you can hang the completed list on your fridge and pat yourself on the back for having completed the course?
It's about doing what you can to avoid hell. Nothing more. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about having a relationship with God or trying to be more like Him, except in the "wouldn't it be cool if I was in charge of everything and got to tell everyone what to do rather than having to kowtow to someone else's whims and rules" sense. I just don't want to burn.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole point of religion is for people to do good things and avoid doing bad ones.
Then it doesn't matter what people believe, only what they do?
You mean they aren't connected? Beliefs matter!
A Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and an Atheist may all give the same amount to charity, avoid causing harm to others and try to be as good a person as they can be. So no, I don't think beliefs must factor into your description of what "the whole point of religion" is. If that description is correct, then as long as someone does the good things and avoids the bad ones their beliefs are irrelevant.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and an Atheist may all give the same amount to charity, avoid causing harm to others and try to be as good a person as they can be. So no, I don't think beliefs must factor into your description of what "the whole point of religion" is. If that description is correct, then as long as someone does the good things and avoids the bad ones their beliefs are irrelevant.
That's right. As long as people act sincerely in the kinds of ways that Jesus tells us to, then their precise religious beliefs are largely irrelevant. Almost every religion teaches the greater part of what Jesus told us. Concepts like kindness, fidelity, honesty and forgiveness are not unkown outside of Christianity. Jesus was clear that this is what He values.
But beliefs do influence how people behave. People everywhere make efforts to teach their children true ideas, knowing that education and training exert a powerful influence. Most people expect that efforts to improve conditions world-wide necessarily involve education as a major factor.
Education isn't necessarily religious, but all education is about the communication of what is believed to be true. To the extent that it really is true, salvation is the result.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sin in its original context meant missing the mark, failing to meet a standard, moral turpitude.
What matters though is what it means now. In most contexts that will be failing to meet God's standards. Which drags in what for me is an unhelpful idea of God.
quote:
The way this resolves for me is that some folks believe our autonomy is enough; indeed it is all we've got, and the most important thing is to take complete responsibility for our own lives. In their minds, the promise of salvation, the promise of God's help, is a kind of delusion that actually gets in the way of acceptance of personal responsibility. That seems to me to be a denial of the possibility that God can help.
If God means the One in who we live and move and have our being, the idea of God "helping us" implies God interfering in what God is already creating. It's consistent with the whole incarnation theory, but as I may have noted elsewhere I don't find that credible.
quote:
Of course, if we don't believe in a helping God, the whole argument becomes nonsensical. Essentially we see ourselves as ultimately "on our own" with the moral challenges of living, regardless of how helpful other people may be.
No, definitely not regardless of how helpful other people may be. And not on our own in an individual sense. Morality and ethics are community/societal constructs negotiated over generations since the dawn of civilisation. We as individuals learn to relate within those frameworks as we grow and contribute in our turn to their evolution. Understanding God as not helping/interfering does not change our dependence on each other.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As long as people act sincerely in the kinds of ways that Jesus tells us to, then their precise religious beliefs are largely irrelevant.
And in fact, as long as they act in those kinds of ways it doesn't even matter what they think of Jesus Himself? Marvellous, that's all I was saying
But what's this "sincerely" about? Surely the point is to avoid doing bad things and to do good things, so why does it matter if they're sincere or not? Does a starving man care whether the person giving him food is sincere?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So anyway: how about responding to some of what I've actually said, rather than making shit up?
It might actually be true, you know, that the Greek Gods (for instance) were assholes. They really did rape human women, in the stories, you know. And so Jesus really is a better answer, for human women at least, you know.
No rapes, at least. Gee, lucky us....
So supposing for a moment that's true then. Has Jesus somehow magically done away with anything that might be thought of as a "monster" - including those rapist Greek gods - but also including disease, poverty, and real predators? Oh - and the arms race?
Makes you wonder what exactly we are saved from. It's all very well to say that sin causes death - but it seems to me that Christians die just as much as non-Christians do. Who in turn die just as much as animals do.
It's no good trying to paint Christianity as somehow better than other cultures, just because it's solved an imaginary problem that never existed in the first place. From where I'm standing, it looks to me that wars still kill, just as much as they always have done.
Course - we can't completely prevent war, this side of the future world renewal. However, the Nazis believed that their culture was better than everyone else's, and that they had nothing to learn from foreign cultures - which is partly why I respect those who try to avoid making the same mistake.
And, for that reason, it's hard for me to respect any kind of ideology that looks to be more about proving a point about the difference between "them" and "us" than it is about trying to live in harmony with each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Of course we think Jesus is better. If we thought Buddha were better we would be Buddhists.
There's nothing wrong with having a defining cultural identity. But there's a difference between having a defining cultural identity, and assuming that everyone that does not subscribe to it must be an uncivilised barbarian.
And when people start trying to claim that their own religion has a uniquely civilising influence, that all other religions lack - it gets very close to the kind of fallacies of cultural supremacy that dogged the colonial age and caused lots of wars and suffering, in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It would be nice if we had a better word or phrase for this aspect, like "self-destructive tendencies" or "anti-social behavior."
How about "mortality"?
From my own amateur readings of the Gospels, it seems that the idea of being a "sinner", being "sick", being "possessed by demons", and being "mortal", are often not that far apart from each other.
For example - if death itself is a monster - as it is portrayed to be in the book of Revelation - then I think it could be argued that anyone who is mortal is "possessed" by the "demon" of death.
Looking at it this way completely squashes the idea that "sin" is something that we can all wag our fingers at each other about. But the trouble is, much of the Old Testament seems to reassert the idea that sin is something you can wag your finger at other people about - although, granted, not all of it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Um, no, of course not. It's certainly no logical reflection of what either of us have posted. Whatever the reason for the misrepresentation, Zach doesn't seem to appreciate that we only become whole as we accept that we alone as individuals and communities must deal with the consequences of our failings. God simply gives us time and space to learn and grow as a result.
Also posted by Dave,
quote:
Humanity is precisely perfectly OK - as humanity. Just as dogs are as dogs. The problem, the guilt, the desire to offload responsibility, comes when we forget our dependence on God and delude ourselves into thinking we are more than we are.
Dave, your "Method of engagement" seems to entail positing something, getting called out for it, then pretending it was some logical defect of mine for pointing out exactly what you said.
It's extremely tiresome and dishonest.
Zach
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about doing what you can to avoid hell. Nothing more. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about having a relationship with God or trying to be more like Him, except in the "wouldn't it be cool if I was in charge of everything and got to tell everyone what to do rather than having to kowtow to someone else's whims and rules" sense. I just don't want to burn.
Hell is mentioned maybe six or seven times in the bible.
It is not the main focus. The main focus is the Kingdom of God and abundant life in living God's will.
Your theology is totally skewed in fear.
And you can't let it go.
Why is that?
Over controlling, horrible, fearmongering parents???
To believe the right things and do the right things only to avoid punishment is selfish. Selfishness is the exact opposite of the meaning of the cross.
Totally fucked theology dude. Totally unbiblical. Totally unreligious. Totally unloving.
But myself and others have pointed this out to you before. But you're not interested in listening.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds wonderful.
Really? It might be wonderful if you are the one who gets to decide. But ultimately that choice is taken away from all of us at some stage. In some cases people live and die without any ever having really exerted their own choice.
We are actively fucking the world up. I contend that merely exercising our ability to do this is not wonderful.
quote:
Yes. They get much worse.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Marvin.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Course - we can't completely prevent war, this side of the future world renewal. However, the Nazis believed that their culture was better than everyone else's, and that they had nothing to learn from foreign cultures - which is partly why I respect those who try to avoid making the same mistake.
And, for that reason, it's hard for me to respect any kind of ideology that looks to be more about proving a point about the difference between "them" and "us" than it is about trying to live in harmony with each other.
I completely understand. I find it difficult to respect the invoking of Godwin's Law, too.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If I understood George Spigot right earlier, he seemed to me to recognise that this is a common human failing, regardless of where we draw the line personally. Christian belief has always been that it's something we are stuck with; without the help of God, we'll continue to be stuck with it. Also that with the help of God we will still struggle with it, but we can do better.
Put in this light, the precursor of salvation is an acceptance of this kind of stuckness. The way this resolves for me is that some folks believe our autonomy is enough; indeed it is all we've got, and the most important thing is to take complete responsibility for our own lives. In their minds, the promise of salvation, the promise of God's help, is a kind of delusion that actually gets in the way of acceptance of personal responsibility. That seems to me to be a denial of the possibility that God can help.
I'm happy to be considered deluded by holding to the belief that in this ongoing challenge of seeking to live well, my help comes from the Lord who made heaven and earth. I can sing along with the Psalmist.
I have a lot of respect for those who emphasise the importance of taking personal responsibility for our lives, and avoiding easy paths, or quack nostrums, or cheap grace. I guess it is my testimony that being a Christian pilgrim is that "well, actually, it really hasn't been like any of the above". I have some sense of Divine help in the midst of the all the challenges, seeking some answers to the general question "how then shall I live". I don't recognise any easy pathway, or quack nostrum, or cheap grace as corresponding to what it's been like to live as a Christian.
Nicely said Barnabas.
God helps. God changes us for the better if we ask.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Dave, your "Method of engagement" seems to entail positing something, getting called out for it, then pretending it was some logical defect of mine for pointing out exactly what you said.
No it doesn't. You seem to be reading my posts as if I'd used entirely different words. I can't help with that, I'm afraid.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
...they are clearly not relying on an internal sense of having done wrong, which is what guilt really is or should be.
If I truly had "an internal sense of doing wrong" about something, I wouldn't have done it in the first place.
This isn't true at all. People do things all the time they sense to be wrong.
Addicts do it, and so do non-addicts. People drink, take drugs, lose their tempers, get into fights, steal, cheat on their spouses - all while believing these things to be wrong.
[ 22. June 2011, 13:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hell is mentioned maybe six or seven times in the bible.
It is not the main focus. The main focus is the Kingdom of God and abundant life in living God's will.
...for those who succeed. For those who fail, there's the fires. Jesus Himself says as much.
quote:
Your theology is totally skewed in fear.
...as, surely, is that of anyone who has ever considered the possibility of damnation. Anyone who says they're not scared of hell either hasn't properly thought about what it would be like to be there or is so arrogant that they cannot picture God doing anything but welcoming them into heaven.
quote:
To believe the right things and do the right things only to avoid punishment is selfish. Selfishness is the exact opposite of the meaning of the cross.
Marvellous, then I'm fucked either way. Either I'm doing good things for selfish reasons (and therefore damned), or I'm not doing them (and therefore damned).
quote:
Totally fucked theology dude. Totally unbiblical. Totally unreligious.
And yet totally in line with the majority of Christian thought throughout the ages.
quote:
Totally unloving.
I reflect back to God that love that He has shown me. Shame it's so little, really.
quote:
But myself and others have pointed this out to you before. But you're not interested in listening.
Maybe that's because I don't (or can't) believe you.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds wonderful.
Really? It might be wonderful if you are the one who gets to decide.
To decide what? I'm merely reflecting that it would be wonderful to be able to live without the sword of damocles that is the threat of hell hanging over our necks all the time.
quote:
quote:
Yes. They get much worse.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Marvin.
I mean that suddenly, rather than being free to do what we choose (within the obvious constraints), we are forced to do whatever God commands. Whether we like it or not. Whether we want to or not. Because otherwise it's The Pit for us.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
But in the Eastern mindset Christ came to restore honor to his children. In the East, honor and shame are not necessarily wrapped up in "doing good or bad things" but rather in managing public perception of one's self. It is the idea of being able to walk through the village square with your head held high. That is why in some Eastern cultures killing is considered justifiable if it restores honor.
....
Christ came to save all men from what they already suffer, not to create a list of things to save them from.
I like the last part of what I've quoted above, but do not understand the first part.
How is "sin" related to "public perception"? I'm not clear on this; are you saying that a community's reaction to a person determines whether or not that person has sinned? So that, whatever the community has decided about behavior is the standard and that a failure to meet that standard is labeled "sin"? And that God's will is understood through community consensus?
(If that's it, I'm not sure how far away this is, thinking about it, from de facto Western ethics/religion.)
[ 22. June 2011, 13:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
People drink, take drugs, lose their tempers, get into fights, steal, cheat on their spouses - all while believing these things to be wrong.
It comes down to our definition of wrong in that context. There will likely be the awareness that other people may prefer us to act differently. But being human we may decide that in this case we prefer to please ourself.
Churches claim this offends God. But in fact choosing "wrong" is only ever a difference of opinion between us and other people as far as my understanding of God goes. Those other people may be entirely correct in terms of potential or likely negative consequences, but that's a different kind of wrong.
[ 22. June 2011, 13:42: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Totally fucked theology dude. Totally unbiblical. Totally unreligious.
And yet totally in line with the majority of Christian thought throughout the ages.
No.
The majority of Christian thought throughout the ages has been that:
God is love.
God is steadfast and faithful to his promises of blessing.
God is merciful, oft forgiving, slow to anger.
You've just been totally warped.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
I wish you'd get over it. When you're not whingeing about the wrath of God, you come across as a nice bloke.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
People drink, take drugs, lose their tempers, get into fights, steal, cheat on their spouses - all while believing these things to be wrong.
It comes down to our definition of wrong in that context. There will likely be the awareness that other people may prefer us to act differently. But being human we may decide that in this case we prefer to please ourself.
Churches claim this offends God. But in fact choosing "wrong" is only ever a difference of opinion between us and other people as far as my understanding of God goes. Those other people may be entirely correct in terms of potential or likely negative consequences, but that's a different kind of wrong.
No, I'm talking about something that I guess is referred to in the literature as "the bound will." IOW: doing things you believe to be wrong (i.e., that are going to cause you to suffer later), and not being able to refrain from doing them.
Other simple (and very common) examples: overeating, spending too much money, procrastination, etc.
And not necessarily in terms of "offending God," either - but in terms of doing things you know are bound to either get you in some sort of trouble, or that you'll feel badly about later.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Your theology is totally skewed in fear.
...as, surely, is that of anyone who has ever considered the possibility of damnation. Anyone who says they're not scared of hell either hasn't properly thought about what it would be like to be there or is so arrogant that they cannot picture God doing anything but welcoming them into heaven.
Can't the same thing be said of anyone who says they're not scared of death?
Upon my amateur reading of the Gospels, it looks to me that "death" and "hell" are often treated as being more or less synonymous with each other.
That's why I think that to say you needn't be scared of going to hell is a bit like saying you needn't be scared of dying.
Okay, to be fair, some of the Stoic philosophers argued exactly that: you don't need to be scared of dying. However, saying that you don't need to be scared of dying, isn't the same thing as saying that you don't need to be prepared for your death. Stoic philosophers went to great lengths to argue how important it is to be prepared for your death.
So, isn't there a possibility, then, that the stuff Christianity says about "heaven" and "hell" might actually just be a metaphor for all that? If it's possible for people to control whether they go to heaven or hell to any extent, then could it not be argued that to actually do something about it is to prepare for your death?
If you weren't bothered about the imminence of your death, then why would you care about heaven or hell? Sure, it might be important - but it wouldn't be top on your list of priorities. If you think you've got a long time to live, then the question of the stuff you have to do to make sure that you get to heaven, and not hell, is something that can wait until a later date.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
To believe the right things and do the right things only to avoid punishment is selfish. Selfishness is the exact opposite of the meaning of the cross.
Marvellous, then I'm fucked either way. Either I'm doing good things for selfish reasons (and therefore damned), or I'm not doing them (and therefore damned).
Very well put. The idea that the desire for afterlife glory might be driven by selfish ambition is something that, in my opinion, really shouldn't pose a problem. It only becomes a problem when we are not consistent in the definition of the word "selfish".
If "selfishness" is defined in a way so as to exclude afterlife ambition, then it makes sense to say that a selfish person's ambitions mucks up their afterlife. Might not necessary be right; that depends on how accurate your afterlife-predicting-crystal-ball is. But at least it's not illogical.
But when the definition of "selfishness" includes afterlife ambition, then it's no longer meaningful to say that selfishness can be a bar to a glorious afterlife.
It seems to me that a large part of the point of the commemoration of the saints, is that our afterlife ambition, and our posterity ambition, makes us want to ape them. Sure, we're all scared of death - but it comforts us to think that we might be able to improve our afterlife and posterity prospects by following someone else's example.
But once you describe such ambition as something that condemns you, then your religion's ethics becomes libertine and antinomian very quickly.
Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on
:
There are two quotes from the Big-O-Orthodox tradition that I've always liked:
First, from St. Isaac of Syria, essentially says that what we call Hell is the fire and pain of remorse. It's not an externally imposed torment, but an internal response to knowing how you measure up. He also says that everything God does is meant to be corrective, not vindictive.
Second, from St. Gregory of Nyssa, from the very last page of The Life of Moses. There, he compares doing God's will out of fear of Hell to slavery. One who does it for a reward is more like a client or contractor. True perfection is to do God's will because you want to be God's friend and partner.
Honestly, Jonathan Edwards gives one sermon on sinners in the hands of an angry God and people think that's the point of Christianity. That kind of fundamentalist hellfire and brimstone doctrine is hardly the last word. It's not even close to the first.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No it doesn't. You seem to be reading my posts as if I'd used entirely different words. I can't help with that, I'm afraid.
All is did was quote your own words, and you are accusing me of dubious reading comprehension.
So, I ask, what doesn't?
Zach
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But what's this "sincerely" about? Surely the point is to avoid doing bad things and to do good things, so why does it matter if they're sincere or not? Does a starving man care whether the person giving him food is sincere?
Not at all. Sincerity is more of a long-term issue. The world works better when people are sincere.
More to the point, it is more satisfying to be able to do what you do sincerely, and satisfaction is an important part of happiness, which is an important aspect of heaven and salvation.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All is did was quote your own words, and you are accusing me of dubious reading comprehension. So, I ask, what doesn't?
You said:
quote:
What I am arguing against is Dave and Marvin's apparent idea that guilt must absolutely be avoided, and the only way to do that is to lower standards so low that everyone is perfectly good just the way they are. The evil of sainthood, for Dave and Marvin, is that its mere existence makes people feel guilty.
That's what I was responding to in the post you quoted.
I haven't said anywhere that guilt must be absolutely avoided, or anything about lowering standards or sainthood. You have invented these accusations based I guess on reading into what I have posted an interpretation that fits your assumptions (false in this case) about points of view different to your own.
If you can show how what I have said can reasonably be taken to mean any of those things, that would be helpful.
[ 22. June 2011, 15:31: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Your theology is totally skewed in fear.
...as, surely, is that of anyone who has ever considered the possibility of damnation. Anyone who says they're not scared of hell either hasn't properly thought about what it would be like to be there or is so arrogant that they cannot picture God doing anything but welcoming them into heaven.
Can't the same thing be said of anyone who says they're not scared of death?
Assuming that it's the end of all things, what's to fear about death? OK, so you won't be around any more, but that won't matter to you because you won't be around any more! And sure, it'll suck for everyone who cares about you, but that won't matter to you because you won't be around any more!
The last few moments leading up to death will no doubt be pretty nasty, but death itself? Not so much.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
True perfection is to do God's will because you want to be God's friend and partner.
Well I don't. I don't much care for God, truth be told. I certainly don't love Him.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
More to the point, it is more satisfying to be able to do what you do sincerely, and satisfaction is an important part of happiness, which is an important aspect of heaven and salvation.
I heartily agree with the first part of that. The problem comes when the things one sincerely wants to do are in conflict with the things one has to do to be in with a shout of heaven and salvation in the first place.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
But in the Eastern mindset Christ came to restore honor to his children. In the East, honor and shame are not necessarily wrapped up in "doing good or bad things" but rather in managing public perception of one's self. It is the idea of being able to walk through the village square with your head held high. That is why in some Eastern cultures killing is considered justifiable if it restores honor.
....
Christ came to save all men from what they already suffer, not to create a list of things to save them from.
I like the last part of what I've quoted above, but do not understand the first part.
How is "sin" related to "public perception"? I'm not clear on this; are you saying that a community's reaction to a person determines whether or not that person has sinned? So that, whatever the community has decided about behavior is the standard and that a failure to meet that standard is labeled "sin"? And that God's will is understood through community consensus?
(If that's it, I'm not sure how far away this is, thinking about it, from de facto Western ethics/religion.)
It's difficult to really understand until you've lived it for a while, but I'll try to explain the best I can:
Basically, the honor/shame paradigm considers things that honor you as 'good' and things that shame you as 'bad.' Actions in and of themselves aren't necessarily right or wrong, but honor and shame are determined on a case-by-case basis. Take lying for instance. I have a local friend who used to constantly tell little white lies to me. I'd call him up to ask him if he wanted to meet up and he'd say "yes" and we'd agree to a time and place. Then he wouldn't show up. Ever. I on the other hand would agree to his invitations to meet up when I was able to do so, and tell him I couldn't meet up if I wasn't able to.
Once we got to be better friends and he realized the differences in our cultural backgrounds he explained to me it's better to always agree to meet up because that gives honor to the person issuing the invitation, even if you don't show up in the end. By flat out telling him "no, I can't meet up tonight" I was being honest (and therefore sinless according to the Western right/wrong paradigm) but was dishonoring my friend and therefore being a bit naughty according to his honor/shame way of looking at things.
It's better to lie (even if everyone realizes you're lying) in an honorable way than to be honest in a dishonorable way. The same applies to many different actions that would be considered inherently sinful if the society were right/wrong.
People in an honor/shame culture don't feel guilt the way most of us Westerners do. In the same manner, we don't feel shame in the way most of them do.
The point I'm trying to make is (as far as I see it) that Jesus came to restore honor to us just as much (if not more so)as he did to 'forgive us of our mistakes.'
If you take all three paradigm of sin as equally valid, you'll see that it's more than just God heaping guilt on us and then giving us a way out: Salvation is a very real solution to evils of all sorts that plague this world.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Can't the same thing be said of anyone who says they're not scared of death?
Assuming that it's the end of all things, what's to fear about death? OK, so you won't be around any more, but that won't matter to you because you won't be around any more! And sure, it'll suck for everyone who cares about you, but that won't matter to you because you won't be around any more!
The last few moments leading up to death will no doubt be pretty nasty, but death itself? Not so much.
Well, okay. In that case, I put it to you that just as the distinction between hell and death isn't that important, the distinction between death itself, and the "last few moments leading up to death", isn't that important either.
So - can't the things that you have said about being scared of hell, be also said about (a) death, and (b) the last few moments leading up to death?
Surely I'm not the only one who has nightmares about being bedridden in a state-run care home that's staffed predominantly by people on workfare schemes and community service sentences?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
So - can't the things that you have said about being scared of hell, be also said about (a) death, and (b) the last few moments leading up to death?
No, because (a) in death you won't be around to feel anything - good or bad - so there's nothing to be afraid of, and (b) with the last few moments before death there's at least the certain knowledge that the torment will eventually cease.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Basically, the honor/shame paradigm considers things that honor you as 'good' and things that shame you as 'bad.' Actions in and of themselves aren't necessarily right or wrong, but honor and shame are determined on a case-by-case basis. Take lying for instance. I have a local friend who used to constantly tell little white lies to me. I'd call him up to ask him if he wanted to meet up and he'd say "yes" and we'd agree to a time and place. Then he wouldn't show up. Ever. I on the other hand would agree to his invitations to meet up when I was able to do so, and tell him I couldn't meet up if I wasn't able to.
Good point - however, I think you have understated the extend to which this honour/shame paradigm underpins Christian narrative. To my way of thinking, it's a large part of the reason why Paul says you cannot be saved by law, but that you can be saved by faith. I think modern-day evangelicals have largely misinterpreted this, in an ironically legalistic way.
For example - martyrdom and heroic deeds confer honour on you - but there's absolutely no way that you can legislate compulsory heroics. If you're only doing a particular thing because there's a law that says you have to do it, then your action is not heroic. It's only heroic if it's optional.
So, law does not entirely determine honour - but it does not entirely determine shame either. It's true that most of the things you can do that break laws are shameful - but it's possible to behave in a shameful way without necessarily doing anything that breaks any specific laws. The story of the prodigal son is a good example of this. The son did not break any laws by asking for the money, or by leaving home, or by spending the money on stuff that wouldn't last. But he was still shamed by his behaviour, and had to ask for forgiveness. Even after the father gave the forgiveness, the brothers were still envious.
So, is it possible to determine honour and shame without recourse to any kind of law whatsoever? Not sure I can answer that question. Nowadays, when we think of "law", we normally think of something that is enforced. A law that's not enforced is a law that can be ignored. However, Old Testament law was not always intended to be enforced by humans - and the medieval encyclopedia compiler Isidore of Seville seems to make a distinction between the unenforced religious law that comes from the Bible, and the humanly enforced Roman state law.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's difficult to really understand until you've lived it for a while, but I'll try to explain the best I can:
Basically, the honor/shame paradigm considers things that honor you as 'good' and things that shame you as 'bad.' Actions in and of themselves aren't necessarily right or wrong, but honor and shame are determined on a case-by-case basis. Take lying for instance. I have a local friend who used to constantly tell little white lies to me. I'd call him up to ask him if he wanted to meet up and he'd say "yes" and we'd agree to a time and place. Then he wouldn't show up. Ever. I on the other hand would agree to his invitations to meet up when I was able to do so, and tell him I couldn't meet up if I wasn't able to.
Once we got to be better friends and he realized the differences in our cultural backgrounds he explained to me it's better to always agree to meet up because that gives honor to the person issuing the invitation, even if you don't show up in the end. By flat out telling him "no, I can't meet up tonight" I was being honest (and therefore sinless according to the Western right/wrong paradigm) but was dishonoring my friend and therefore being a bit naughty according to his honor/shame way of looking at things.
It's better to lie (even if everyone realizes you're lying) in an honorable way than to be honest in a dishonorable way. The same applies to many different actions that would be considered inherently sinful if the society were right/wrong.
People in an honor/shame culture don't feel guilt the way most of us Westerners do. In the same manner, we don't feel shame in the way most of them do.
The point I'm trying to make is (as far as I see it) that Jesus came to restore honor to us just as much (if not more so)as he did to 'forgive us of our mistakes.'
If you take all three paradigm of sin as equally valid, you'll see that it's more than just God heaping guilt on us and then giving us a way out: Salvation is a very real solution to evils of all sorts that plague this world.
Thanks for the explanation; very helpful. Again I agree with your last paragraph! So whatever you're saying that leads up to these final summaries must make sense, even if I don't quite understand it yet....
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
So - can't the things that you have said about being scared of hell, be also said about (a) death, and (b) the last few moments leading up to death?
No, because (a) in death you won't be around to feel anything - good or bad - so there's nothing to be afraid of, and (b) with the last few moments before death there's at least the certain knowledge that the torment will eventually cease.
Hmm. Normally, it's the Christians I'd accuse of going a bit weird with their afterlife-predicting-crystal-balls. But the idea that you can really be sure of cease of torment strikes me as crystal-ball-gazing too.
The only thing I think we can really be certain of, is that the future is uncertain.
How can you be sure that some religiously-minded sadist isn't going to come along and prolong your life and your agony, on the pretext that life is precious, and that you must never kill anyone?
Do you really think that as long as it eventually ends, then everything is okay? If so, then what's the big deal about the stuff that the religious types say or do? Why does it matter whether they scare people or not? Does it matter?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
More to the point, it is more satisfying to be able to do what you do sincerely, and satisfaction is an important part of happiness, which is an important aspect of heaven and salvation.
I heartily agree with the first part of that. The problem comes when the things one sincerely wants to do are in conflict with the things one has to do to be in with a shout of heaven and salvation in the first place.
Yes, that's the rub.
Hence the idea that hell is also doing what you sincerely want to do. It's just not as much fun. Your eternal happiness depends on what it is that you sincerely want to do.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't much care for God, truth be told. I certainly don't love Him. ... The problem comes when the things one sincerely wants to do are in conflict with the things one has to do to be in with a shout of heaven and salvation in the first place.
There's more than one way to "love" God. Saccharine Jesus-hugging isn't your thing? Life is a struggle to avoid hell? How about a little change of perspective then... take this earthly pilgrimage as so much spiritual Gong Fu training, and you might also end up punching your way out of the grave with a sincere appreciation for your heavy-handed Master.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course, if we don't believe in a helping God, the whole argument becomes nonsensical. Essentially we see ourselves as ultimately "on our own" with the moral challenges of living, regardless of how helpful other people may be.
No, definitely not regardless of how helpful other people may be. And not on our own in an individual sense. Morality and ethics are community/societal constructs negotiated over generations since the dawn of civilisation. We as individuals learn to relate within those frameworks as we grow and contribute in our turn to their evolution. Understanding God as not helping/interfering does not change our dependence on each other.
I agree with you that personal responsibility gets worked out in community. I just think that is part of the problem to which I referred earlier - that we are not very good at adhering consistently to either social guidelines (either legally enforced or the subject of some peer pressure) or our own personal guidelines. We miss the mark. That gets highlighted for us in communal living. What we do about it becomes a matter of personal choice.
I'll pass over the obvious complications caused by arguments of personal conscience against group norms. Suffice to say that group norms are not always good norms, so they do not always provide us with yardsticks we find satisfactory.
Dave, a comment from your earlier observations in your post on which I'd value a clarification. Does your theological understanding effectively rule out an interventionist God? I could have observed that real help is actually the opposite of interference, but I know you know that, so I guess your comments re intervention have another reason.
[ 22. June 2011, 20:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
we are not very good at adhering consistently to either social guidelines (either legally enforced or the subject of some peer pressure) or our own personal guidelines. We miss the mark.
I think my point is that these are guidelines, not rules or laws. "Missing the mark" is still OK; it's just normal variation within a population. Sin carries the definite connotation of not OK.
quote:
Does your theological understanding effectively rule out an interventionist God?
That may be hard to explain. My understanding is that reality is only now, the expression by God of a state of the entire universe this instant. What we experience as time is a process of God continuously re-expressing that state of creation, changed each next instant according to what we call the laws of nature. From this point of view God cannot not intervene without time and the universe ceasing to exist.
If there were no life within this process it would be a deistic model. But if life is essentially an array of sub-processes within time, each life-form is a particular instance interacting with God to modify the basic inorganic creation process. Human life-forms go one step further and self-consciously interact at potentially however large a scale they can practically imagine. Either co-operatively and constructively, or antagonistically and destructively.
In this scheme, is God interventionist? An open question I guess in your terms. Based on my experience and the evidence of nature, I lean towards ultimate consistency.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
"Missing the mark" is still OK; it's just normal variation within a population. Sin carries the definite connotation of not OK.
That really made me chuckle for a reason you might not expect and might make you chuckle too. I'm kind of notorious where I worship for saying "it's OK to be not OK".
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62: Does your theological understanding effectively rule out an interventionist God?
That may be hard to explain. My understanding is that reality is only now, the expression by God of a state of the entire universe this instant. What we experience as time is a process of God continuously re-expressing that state of creation, changed each next instant according to what we call the laws of nature. From this point of view God cannot not intervene without time and the universe ceasing to exist.
If there were no life within this process it would be a deistic model. But if life is essentially an array of sub-processes within time, each life-form is a particular instance interacting with God to modify the basic inorganic creation process. Human life-forms go one step further and self-consciously interact at potentially however large a scale they can practically imagine. Either co-operatively and constructively, or antagonistically and destructively.
In this scheme, is God interventionist? An open question I guess in your terms. Based on my experience and the evidence of nature, I lean towards ultimate consistency.
I get that, maybe for the first time, Dave. I need to take a bit of time to think about it, but I promise to respond. Thanks for the explanation; that helps me to understand some stuff about your posts which has puzzled me before.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think my point is that these are guidelines, not rules or laws. "Missing the mark" is still OK; it's just normal variation within a population. Sin carries the definite connotation of not OK.
well, that's all "sin" means (in the original Greek). but "missing the mark" is off course still "not OK" in the sense that "less than great". any other understanding of sin is probably more about the person hearing the word than the actual meaning of the term.
but I have to say that "missing the mark" is not "just a normal variation" like having different colored hair. missing the mark does imply that there is some ideal, and we all (yes, "normally" but still) fall short of it. it would be like saying that ideally everyone has blonde hair, but of course there is this normal variation in human populations where some people have colors that fall short of this ideal. no, with regard to human morality/behavior, there IS some ideal that we all continually fall short of. and that's OK, that's normal, but it's not OK to just say "oh, well, it's just a normal variation". that we may not actually always know what the idea is in any given situation, or that societies/relgions have tried to be more specific than "strive to love even your enemies as yourself" that we run into trouble. vagueness bothers people. so they try to pin down.. what SPECIFICALLY is it that makes an action "fall short". I mean, even something like "killing another person is bad" which seems like a fairly obvious statement, untill you consider mercy killing (nevermnind Kevorkian, I'm thinking as far back as on the ancient battlefield, where a friend may end the torture of a fellow soldier who has his gutts spilling out all over the field). is it more loving to leave your friend to suffer or to answer his plea to end it all?
that's just one example, but of course there are many.. and some criticis that as "situational ethics" but in fact it's really peeling away the surface "rules" and getting down to the core value.. is this action loving to this other person/group or not? and no, sometimes it's not clear, and sometimes even there isn't one single right answer, but it's not because the ethics are fuzzy, but that it's sometimes harder to actually get to the core than it is to just go with the superficial "obvious" rule.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's more than one way to "love" God. Saccharine Jesus-hugging isn't your thing? Life is a struggle to avoid hell? How about a little change of perspective then... take this earthly pilgrimage as so much spiritual Gong Fu training, and you might also end up punching your way out of the grave with a sincere appreciation for your heavy-handed Master.
That is a truly disturbing video. I couldn't even watch it all.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Seen it. The gospel according to Quentin Tarrantino doesn't hold much pulling power for me. Kill Bill 1 and 2 are all about bloody revenge as a means of personal rehabilitation.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That is a truly disturbing video. I couldn't even watch it all.
Seriously? Anyway, Marvin is not you and it's just a suggestion that seems to fit what he keeps going on about. The emphasis on "expedient means" is one thing I still value highly in Buddhism.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Seen it. The gospel according to Quentin Tarrantino doesn't hold much pulling power for me. Kill Bill 1 and 2 are all about bloody revenge as a means of personal rehabilitation.
Sigh. I did not talk about Kill Bill as such, and I did not link to any splatter part of those movies.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
To believe the right things and do the right things only to avoid punishment is selfish. Selfishness is the exact opposite of the meaning of the cross.
Marvellous, then I'm fucked either way. Either I'm doing good things for selfish reasons (and therefore damned), or I'm not doing them (and therefore damned).
The middle way is to be mindful that your very existence is a fusion of selfness and otherness (see Donne and others), and to proceed accordingly with the appreciation that what you Do Unto Others™ you simultaneously Do Unto Yourself.
Of course, I get that from Buddhism. But Christians claim co-ownership of the Golden Rule so I'm sure it can be understood from that perspective too. It points to a much more profound principle than 'wouldn't it be nice if we could all be nice to each other'.
I see a 'sinful' existence then as one which ignores either one of those aspects (though, yes, it's usually otherness that gets the cold shoulder). Thinking and acting that way locks us into an unenlightened condition motivated by misguided instincts. Thus, we create our own Hell in the here & now. No delayed external judgment is required. The good news is that the flipside is equally true for creating our own (or communal!) Heaven.
[ 23. June 2011, 08:10: Message edited by: kankucho ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sigh. I did not talk about Kill Bill as such, and I did not link to any splatter part of those movies.
"Punching your way out of a grave" was in a pretty splattery context ..
Of course I saw what you were doing; in terms of appropriate context, I'm not sure that you saw what you were doing. Don't think it worked, IngoB. That's all.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That is a truly disturbing video. I couldn't even watch it all.
Seriously? Anyway, Marvin is not you and it's just a suggestion that seems to fit what he keeps going on about. The emphasis on "expedient means" is one thing I still value highly in Buddhism.
Crossposted Buddhist reference just spotted.
Ingo, if you're misappropriating the term 'expedient means' to account for the co-opting of corrupt Buddhist institutions as sanctified training camps by medievel feudal warlords, I shall have to ask you to step outside for a swift kick in the goolies.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, Marvin is not you and it's just a suggestion that seems to fit what he keeps going on about.
To a degree perhaps, but at least Pai Mei never made any claims about loving his pupil.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't much care for God, truth be told. I certainly don't love Him. ... The problem comes when the things one sincerely wants to do are in conflict with the things one has to do to be in with a shout of heaven and salvation in the first place.
There's more than one way to "love" God. Saccharine Jesus-hugging isn't your thing? Life is a struggle to avoid hell? How about a little change of perspective then... take this earthly pilgrimage as so much spiritual Gong Fu training, and you might also end up punching your way out of the grave with a sincere appreciation for your heavy-handed Master.
I thought that was brilliant! No I have not yet seen Kill Bill.
Bearing that in mind, when I had only seen the first few minutes, I saw it as a piss-take of far Eastern warrior asceticism traditions - and, more particularly, Westerners' attempts to ape them. It did make me laugh, though. I never thought about trying to eat with chopsticks as a form of "fasting" before.
But hey - it's good to learn how to overcome the problems we might face in life, though. Especially the problem of death. Okay, so I realise that punching your way out of a grave isn't quite the same thing as overcoming death - but hey, it's near enough to make the point.
I can't help but think about that in terms of myth-archetype-spotting. Indeed, if I had not previously done a lot of myth-archetype-spotting, I don't think I would have understood the point of that clip.
But it saddens me somewhat to find that mainstream Christian tradition - indeed, mainstream tradition of most Abrahamic religions - still frowns on this somewhat. Wouldn't be so bad if Richard Dawkins was any better than the religions he rails against - but he isn't. Then again, C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien went a long way towards breaking down the barriers to this sort of thing.
Thanks for the heads up, will scout video store for more Tarantino films that I have not yet seen.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
True perfection is to do God's will because you want to be God's friend and partner.
Well I don't. I don't much care for God, truth be told. I certainly don't love Him.
Perhaps you'd have been more comfortable with 19th century religion - where God was treated with a certain amount of wary respect, rather like a slightly benevolent autocrat. I'm not quite sure where this 'God is my mate' concept came from in the first place. You can't blame it all on Jesus - seems to me everyone was rather wary and in awe of him from time to time, also.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I don't think (to continue the theme of analyzing Marvin's "relationship with God," which seems a bit personal, but Marvin was the one who brought it there) that Marvin is talking about respecting God as a distant authority figure or a stern teacher as opposed to viewing God as a buddy. I could be wrong, but what I'm reading in Marvin's posts is an active dislike and resentment of God: a sense of being obligated to worship and serve a deity for whom he has absolutely no affinity or respect, because he has an unshakeable belief that that god will cause him to burn eternally in a place of torment if he doesn't worship that god and obey its laws.
Please correct me if I haven't read your view of religion right, Marvin, but if that is what you're saying, it's probably one of the least appealing views of religion I've ever seen. And I used to feel really sorry for you and think it was terrible to be trapped in that kind of dynamic ... but now that I've thought it over a bit more, I think it's the absolutely logical outgrowth of believing in an eternally burning hell. A god who could do that is not a god anyone SHOULD respect or worship, and the most appropriate response seems, to me, to simply reject that god and say "I refuse to believe in or worship such a deity." But if you simply can't do that -- if you can't rid yourself of that belief -- then worshipping out of a sense of terror and obligation is pretty much your only option. When I really think about it, all the people who claim to "love" a god capable of torturing people eternally are doing a very worrisome bit of mental gymnastics to get there.
It's only a shame you can't rid yourself of that belief and confront the idea of God directly without the threat of eternal torture hanging over you, but it's the most pernicious and persistent false teaching in Christianity, even though it's not terrible well-supported in the Bible, so I can sort of see why people have trouble letting it go, despite the damage it does to the human psyche and to our perception of God's character.
[ 23. June 2011, 09:43: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm not quite sure where this 'God is my mate' concept came from in the first place.
It would be interesting to see if we can figure it out. Apparently there was a Sally Army hymn called "I Have Found a Friend in Jesus", which was written way way back in 1881.
And then there's "What a Friend We Have in Jesus", that was written in ancient antiquity of 1855 - although that was admittedly only the words; the tune was written a bit later.
Seems to me, then, that the idea of God being a friend, has sprung out of the idea of Jesus being a friend - which in turn was a natural result of evangelicalism's "born again" conversionism doctrine. It may have crept into other denominations slightly since then.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Please correct me if I haven't read your view of religion right, Marvin, but if that is what you're saying, it's probably one of the least appealing views of religion I've ever seen. And I used to feel really sorry for you and think it was terrible to be trapped in that kind of dynamic ... but now that I've thought it over a bit more, I think it's the absolutely logical outgrowth of believing in an eternally burning hell. A god who could do that is not a god anyone SHOULD respect or worship, and the most appropriate response seems, to me, to simply reject that god and say "I refuse to believe in or worship such a deity." But if you simply can't do that -- if you can't rid yourself of that belief -- then worshipping out of a sense of terror and obligation is pretty much your only option. When I really think about it, all the people who claim to "love" a god capable of torturing people eternally are doing a very worrisome bit of mental gymnastics to get there.
Is it anything new, though?
Seems to me that it's only really a problem of the blurring of the distinction between "gods" and "monsters" - or between "angels" and "demons" if you like.
Jesus and his army of angels are supposed to defeat Satan and his army of demons - but it gets a bit silly when you can't tell which side is which. However, the point needs to be made that when two warring sides are fighting, sometimes, you really can't tell which side is which. And sometimes, it's better to give credit to both sides.
Part of the reason for that is that an athlete's ability to defeat an opponent can only be regarded as a sign of competence, if the opponent is also regarded as a competent athlete. You're not a hero if the opponents you defeat are cowards; you're only a hero if your opponents are heroes too. That means that if you want to talk up the heroics of the athletes on your side, you've got to talk up the heroics of the athletes on your opponent's side as well.
Just like sports commentators routinely do.
It's no good saying that Jesus is a hero if Satan is a coward. If Satan is easily defeated, then Jesus hasn't really done anything that deserves a great deal of merit.
This is something which I think is strongly reflected in Homer's Iliad - and I suspect it's part of the reason why the Histories of Herodotus tried to explain things from both the Persian and the Greek point of view. Hebrew tradition didn't have quite such a big athlete cult as Greek tradition, which might explain why the Bible tends to look more one-sided than classical Greek literature.
However, in the Old Testament, and in some of the saints legends, foreign gods were portrayed as monsters - as if to say that the threatening nature of these monster gods is the reason people worshipped them in the first place. The story of St George and the dragon is a good example of this.
So, given the fact that gods and monsters aren't always easily distinguished from each other, is it any wonder that the Christian God occasionally gets thought of as being a monster as well?
If Satan is terrifying, but God isn't - then isn't that a tacit admission that when the Final Battle comes round, Satan might actually win? You don't want to be backing the wrong horse.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Also most people I know wouldn't want to allow someone to be tourtured for a second let alone eternity. So they may feel they are being asked to respect and obey a being they feel morally superior to.
With reguards to sin Mrs Spigot, (hey there do you want me to put the kettle on)? says I'm mincing words when I say "do wrong" instead of sin. She has a point. Good old Dictionary.com tells me that sin is:
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Its the "or moral law" that I'm interested in. I'd be happy to admit that I have broken moral laws in the past and as a definition it's close enough to "done something wrong".
However there is still somethime about the word sin that prevents me from wanting to use it. Imagin I'm having a conversation and I say, "I did something wrong yesterday".
No imagin I say, "I sinned yesterday". Surely if I say sinned then I'm sending out a lot of false messages and distorting the meaning of my remark. People listening would be apt to believe that I held a religious belief, possibly that I was a Christian, that I held a number of biblical doctrines to be true, that I felt I needed some sort of spiritual forgiveness and or salvation............
I dunno am I making any sense here?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
am I making any sense here?
You are to me. Doing wrong/immorality always implies the question "according to who". I might be labelled immoral in the local press but have a consistent and thought-through justification for my actions. My morality would simply be different to that of the community (or the editor of the local paper).
Whatever the origins of the word, sin conveys offence against some universal morality, usually God's, as you've explained. I happen to think universal morality is a contradiction in terms, but it's certainly a different, more actively judgemental meaning.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I could be wrong, but what I'm reading in Marvin's posts is an active dislike and resentment of God: a sense of being obligated to worship and serve a deity for whom he has absolutely no affinity or respect, because he has an unshakeable belief that that god will cause him to burn eternally in a place of torment if he doesn't worship that god and obey its laws.
...
I think it's the absolutely logical outgrowth of believing in an eternally burning hell. A god who could do that is not a god anyone SHOULD respect or worship, and the most appropriate response seems, to me, to simply reject that god and say "I refuse to believe in or worship such a deity." But if you simply can't do that -- if you can't rid yourself of that belief -- then worshipping out of a sense of terror and obligation is pretty much your only option.
Pretty much, yes. Especially the bit about not being able to rid oneself of the belief. I'd love to be able to just stop believing that it's true.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
However there is still somethime about the word sin that prevents me from wanting to use it. Imagin I'm having a conversation and I say, "I did something wrong yesterday".
No imagin I say, "I sinned yesterday". Surely if I say sinned then I'm sending out a lot of false messages and distorting the meaning of my remark. People listening would be apt to believe that I held a religious belief, possibly that I was a Christian, that I held a number of biblical doctrines to be true, that I felt I needed some sort of spiritual forgiveness and or salvation............
Not necessarily. They might assume that you were on Weight Watchers or some other calorie counting diet regime. In this context, to "sin" means to eat a chocolate cake that exceeds your daily calorie limit.
Which I think illustrates the point about how loose the definitions of these terms have become. Just as you think that "to sin" is different from "to do wrong", so too do Christians think that being saved by Jesus from "sin" is different to being saved by Jesus from "doing wrong". Jesus has saved you from sin, and from the consequences of sin - but he has not saved you from doing wrong, or the consequences of doing wrong, because "sin" and "doing wrong" are not one and the same thing, you see?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that attempting to define theology in terms of words with such slippery definitions, is deliberate obscurantism.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Ingo, if you're misappropriating the term 'expedient means' to account for the co-opting of corrupt Buddhist institutions as sanctified training camps by medievel feudal warlords, I shall have to ask you to step outside for a swift kick in the goolies.
WTF? I was attempting to find "expedient means" that would get Marvin from where he is now, in a manner that speaks to him, closer to where I think he should be. Truth isn't relative, but the ways to truth certainly are.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To a degree perhaps, but at least Pai Mei never made any claims about loving his pupil.
Every master loves a good pupil, because every master loves his or her art.
Sure, God is more than Pai Mei and your faith is less than it could be. So what? We all have to start somewhere, the question is what we do with it...
[ 23. June 2011, 12:22: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps you'd have been more comfortable with 19th century religion - where God was treated with a certain amount of wary respect, rather like a slightly benevolent autocrat. I'm not quite sure where this 'God is my mate' concept came from in the first place. You can't blame it all on Jesus - seems to me everyone was rather wary and in awe of him from time to time, also. [/QUOTE]
Speaking for myself, I got it from, as I said, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and I'm not sure he meant it in quite such a touchy-feely way. The Life of Moses is primarily his analysis of the Exodus story as an allegory for mystical progress, for which sin and repentance are only the first step. So I think on one level, he meant "friendship" as the mystical experience of God.
On another level, I think he's talking about goals and motivation. Not to say, "I better do what God wants or he'll punish me," or, "I better do what God says so I'll get the reward he promised me," but, "I'll do what God says because I want the same thing and want to help him." Granted, this can get self-serving in its own way (how do you tell where God's goals end and yours begin?), but I think that's part of why mysticism is so important. It demands humility and selflessness.
Now, I've had to confront the idea of eternal firey Hell before, and the odd thing is that I was only able to set it aside once I made peace with it. I basically accepted that as Creator of the Universe, yeah, God can torture me for all eternity, and may have every right to. If that offends your sensibilities, good! It should! We shouldn't worship such a God! That's where faith comes in--trusting that this is not God's character, that he loves everybody and everything, that he doesn't want to torture us, but wants to make us partakers of his own nature.
From there, I just had to rethink what the Bible actually means when it talks about Gehenna and Hades and the Final Judgment. I don't think it's possible to take such a totally metaphysical concept at face value. That led me to St. Isaac's ideas. Dostoevsky sums it up even more succinctly: what is Hell but the inability to love? (I'm paraphrasing here.)
To say Christ came to save us from Hell should mean that he came to invite us to deeper and more universal love, not that he came to save us from his own father.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... and your faith is less than it could be.
As with so many things, it depends on what you mean by that. "Faith" as in belief or "faith" as in love/trust?
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
First, from St. Isaac of Syria, essentially says that what we call Hell is the fire and pain of remorse. It's not an externally imposed torment, but an internal response to knowing how you measure up. He also says that everything God does is meant to be corrective, not vindictive.
Second, from St. Gregory of Nyssa, from the very last page of The Life of Moses. There, he compares doing God's will out of fear of Hell to slavery. One who does it for a reward is more like a client or contractor. True perfection is to do God's will because you want to be God's friend and partner.
I agree; I see "sin and salvation" more in this way - particularly the point about "corrective, not vindictive."
This is why, I think, the Psalmist can say: "Lord, how I love Thy Law!" The Mosaic Law was seen originally as - and in fact was, from everything I've read - a great step forward and a civilizing influence. "An eye for an eye" was an attempt to "make the punishment fit the crime," and to end blood feuds. Today it's seen as vindictive, but that's not how it was seen at the time.
There's a term used for the period in which the great world religions arose that escapes me now - but it does seem that there was a point in human evolution where "methods of dealing with 'sin'" became a focus. Certainly Buddhism (again from the little I know about other religions) is a good example of this, via the Four Noble Truths. So it would seem that human beings had become aware of something they hadn't been aware of before - or else perhaps needed to deal with the arising of new conditions in the world?
In any case, I agree that "the Law" - in whatever form it comes, including what we call "revelation," in the form of Jesus, for instance - is meant to be corrective: to help people to live in a better way. "Salvation" is not just about what happens after death; early Christians, for instance, began to speak this way because they did feel "saved," I think, by what they felt about Jesus.
Again, I can't speak for other religions, as I don't know enough about them. But it seems to me that people would not be adherents to a religion if they didn't feel they were made whole - or more whole, at least - in some way by it. The point, maybe, is that "the Law is written on our hearts," as the saying goes - but we cannot always keep to it. We are all bound and blind in various ways.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hell is mentioned maybe six or seven times in the bible.
It is not the main focus. The main focus is the Kingdom of God and abundant life in living God's will.
Your theology is totally skewed in fear.
And you can't let it go.
Why is that?
Because if God genuinely does condemn people to hell, it is incredibly telling about the nature of the supposedly loving God. The mere existance of hell makes any discussion about the loving nature of God akin to a discussion of Joseph Fritzl as a loving parent.
And given how the torment of Hell is infinite, it destroys all discernment. Any evil to save people from hell is worth it. Because you're adding an infinite to the equation. You could mention such an event only once, but the weight of that infinite is enough to warp everything around it.
quote:
Totally fucked theology dude. Totally unbiblical. Totally unreligious. Totally unloving.
Any God that willingly condemns people to hell, yes that is a good description (other than totally unreligious).
Does hell exist? Does anyone (Judas? Hitler?) suffer eternal torment? If anyone is suffering eternal torment in the creation of the "loving" God then we're back to God being as loving of his family as Joseph Fritzl is of his. And that is not a God worthy of worship. I don't care about the Incarnation or the Atonement if anyone is left in Hell. You are asking me to call the most evil being it is possible for me to imagine; one who tortures infinitely and repays minor evil with infinite evil. And then you have the neck to call him good, loving, and merciful. What next? Calling the Furies the Kindly Ones?
If hell exists and people are in hell then you can preach to me of God being love all you want. You are preaching to me of Joseph Fritzl being a good family man when you know and I know that all the time his daughter is in that basement.
The mere existence of an eternal hell is completely incompatable with any claim that the Creator is good, loving (let alone love), or even merciful.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As with so many things, it depends on what you mean by that. "Faith" as in belief or "faith" as in love/trust?
Both/and. But does that matter? I can't walk in your shoes, and you can't walk in mine. All I'm saying is that if you are wearing tough hiking boots, then maybe God wants you to walk across mountains and not beaches. These flip-flops, they are mine, and no amount of complaining will put them on your feet...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm not quite sure where this 'God is my mate' concept came from in the first place.
It would be interesting to see if we can figure it out. Apparently there was a Sally Army hymn called "I Have Found a Friend in Jesus", which was written way way back in 1881.
And then there's "What a Friend We Have in Jesus", that was written in ancient antiquity of 1855 - although that was admittedly only the words; the tune was written a bit later.
Seems to me, then, that the idea of God being a friend, has sprung out of the idea of Jesus being a friend - which in turn was a natural result of evangelicalism's "born again" conversionism doctrine. It may have crept into other denominations slightly since then.
Hmmm,
There is also a hymn entitled 'I've found a friend, O such a friend' written by a Free Church of scotland minister in 1864.
There are also the following well-known evangelical songs:
O Worship the King, with the line 'Our maker, defender, redeemer and friend.'
O Sacred Head, Now (once or sore) Wounded, with the line 'What language shall I borrow to thank thee dearest friend...'
Of course, the greatest, and original, evangelical culprit was a certain Messiah who is reputed to have said:
"I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."
John 15 v 15
Quite scandalous really - and an affront to all churchmen who, being true, stiff-upper lip englishmen would never dream of calling the Almighty 'friend'.
Such a shame that the witness of the church and scripture has been that friendship with God/Christ is one of the blessings of salvation.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Speaking for myself, I got it from, as I said, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and I'm not sure he meant it in quite such a touchy-feely way. The Life of Moses is primarily his analysis of the Exodus story as an allegory for mystical progress, for which sin and repentance are only the first step. So I think on one level, he meant "friendship" as the mystical experience of God.
Thanks for that. That makes me wonder if perhaps the Evangelicals got their ideas about personal conversion and relationship with Jesus from the way the Orthodox tradition sees Gregory of Nyssa - or has Orthodox tradition altered the way it views St Gregory of Nyssa under Evangelical influence? Or are they two separate and independent developments?
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Second, from St. Gregory of Nyssa, from the very last page of The Life of Moses. There, he compares doing God's will out of fear of Hell to slavery. One who does it for a reward is more like a client or contractor. True perfection is to do God's will because you want to be God's friend and partner.
All good points.
I think it could be argued that to be motivated to do something out of fear about what will happen if you don't, makes you a coward.
Was Polycarp motivated to pour libation at the emperor statue feet because he was scared that he might be thrown in the beast arena if he didn't? No. The thought of being thrown to the beast arena actually didn't deter him from refusing to pour the libation, and proclaiming Christ instead. And he is regarded as a hero for it.
And I suggest that our response to the threat of hell might be the same.
Then again - maybe not. I suspect that we're only having this debate because the threat of hell has been abused to scare people out of doing things that are actually perfectly reasonable.
It doesn't help when Christianity breaks up into sects, and when one sect's glorified martyrs are the other sect's hell-bound heretics.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does hell exist? Does anyone (Judas? Hitler?) suffer eternal torment? If anyone is suffering eternal torment in the creation of the "loving" God then we're back to God being as loving of his family as Joseph Fritzl is of his. And that is not a God worthy of worship.
Suppose a person thinks that it's "Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven" (to quote Milton in "Paradise Lost")? Should God force them to choose heaven?
What about, in other words, free will?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Speaking for myself, I got it from, as I said, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and I'm not sure he meant it in quite such a touchy-feely way. The Life of Moses is primarily his analysis of the Exodus story as an allegory for mystical progress, for which sin and repentance are only the first step. So I think on one level, he meant "friendship" as the mystical experience of God.
Thanks for that. That makes me wonder if perhaps the Evangelicals got their ideas about personal conversion and relationship with Jesus from the way the Orthodox tradition sees Gregory of Nyssa
Humph!
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Maybe, just maybe, they got it from Scripture!
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Thanks for that. That makes me wonder if perhaps the Evangelicals got their ideas about personal conversion and relationship with Jesus from the way the Orthodox tradition sees Gregory of Nyssa
Humph!
Maybe, just maybe, they got it from Scripture!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Seriously, that possibility never occurred to me.
However, to say that they did get it from scripture raises a chicken-and-egg situation. Whilst Evangelicalism did not initially start out as defined by Bebbington's four distinctives, it remains the case that biblicism is one of them - and conversionism is another. The other two, as I'm sure you're aware, are activism and crucicentrism.
My view is that the "personal relationship with Jesus" thing can be thought of as a product of conversionism - and perhaps crucicentrism too, albeit to a lesser extent than conversionism.
But supposing for a moment the ideas of conversionism and crucicentrism came from biblicism. That raises the question - where did the idea of biblicism come from?
It's no good saying that they got it from Scripture - because that doesn't explain why there was a 17-century gap before anyone noticed it was there in the first place.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Humph!
Maybe, just maybe, they got it from Scripture!
Upon googling around this issue to look for stuff about the origins of biblicism, I am shocked - shocked! - to discover that there is an allegation that John Wesley practiced bibliomancy.
I think it's fair to say that modern Evangelicalism has moved on a bit from there. But even so, I don't think it bodes well. It makes Evangelicalism's pretence of being backed up by serious academic theology sound a bit hollow to me.
Then again, maybe some SoF regulars live in parts of the world where Evangelicalism doesn't make that pretence - but it does make that pretence round where I live.
But that's a tangent. Point is, it still looks like this "personal relationship with Jesus" thing is a very recent phenomenon, and it's interesting to see how it may have developed. I don't think that saying "it might have come from scripture" really answers that question fully - but I apologise if Evangelical sensitivities are offended by me saying that.
I'm genuinely interested to see if we can chart its historical development - but I don't want to become embroiled in point-scoring with Evangelicals over whether the stuff they say comes from the Bible really comes from the Bible or not, if I can help it, because I'm not interested either way.
But I think that to answer the question properly requires knowing a thing or two about the history of the Moravians.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does hell exist? Does anyone (Judas? Hitler?) suffer eternal torment? If anyone is suffering eternal torment in the creation of the "loving" God then we're back to God being as loving of his family as Joseph Fritzl is of his. And that is not a God worthy of worship.
Suppose a person thinks that it's "Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven" (to quote Milton in "Paradise Lost")? Should God force them to choose heaven?
What about, in other words, free will?
Lucifer hardly has the same experience of Hell as those who don't reign there. And anyone who would choose eternal torment is not of sane mind and therefore has diminished responsibility. Especially as to be suffering eternal torment, the choice must be irrevocable. This also doesn't answer the question why God created Hell.
Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Speaking for myself, I got it from, as I said, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and I'm not sure he meant it in quite such a touchy-feely way. The Life of Moses is primarily his analysis of the Exodus story as an allegory for mystical progress, for which sin and repentance are only the first step. So I think on one level, he meant "friendship" as the mystical experience of God.
Thanks for that. That makes me wonder if perhaps the Evangelicals got their ideas about personal conversion and relationship with Jesus from the way the Orthodox tradition sees Gregory of Nyssa - or has Orthodox tradition altered the way it views St Gregory of Nyssa under Evangelical influence? Or are they two separate and independent developments?
My guess is separate and independent. I don't tend to see much to indicate that Evangelicals know much about Orthodox saints or theology; and the Orthodox tend to resist outside influence pretty strongly.
I think I first encountered the idea in a book by Kyriacos Markides, where a priest tells him essentially the same thing in describing how he deals with confession. Fear is the lowest motivator, appropriate only for coaxing the most stubborn sinners; reward is in the middle, for people who are a bit more waffly; and love is the best way to appeal to a penitent. It may also be in The Way of a Pilgrim or the Philokalia, but I have trouble remembering.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does hell exist? Does anyone (Judas? Hitler?) suffer eternal torment? If anyone is suffering eternal torment in the creation of the "loving" God then we're back to God being as loving of his family as Joseph Fritzl is of his. And that is not a God worthy of worship.
Suppose a person thinks that it's "Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven" (to quote Milton in "Paradise Lost")? Should God force them to choose heaven?
What about, in other words, free will?
Lucifer hardly has the same experience of Hell as those who don't reign there. And anyone who would choose eternal torment is not of sane mind and therefore has diminished responsibility. Especially as to be suffering eternal torment, the choice must be irrevocable. This also doesn't answer the question why God created Hell.
Except that as several people have already mentioned on this thread, the choice is not necessarily "irrevocable" - which idea voids anything above that relies on that assumption.
But it looks like you don't want to consider that possibility. Which means that you've chosen this conception of God as the one you yourself prefer.
Which brings us back around to "free will," actually.....
[ 23. June 2011, 16:02: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
.....anyone who would choose eternal torment is not of sane mind and therefore has diminished responsibility. Especially as to be suffering eternal torment, the choice must be irrevocable. This also doesn't answer the question why God created Hell.
I don't think anybody chooses Hell — anymore than somebody who robs a bank chooses a 10-to-20 stretch. Surely people commit Hell-consigning deeds because they think they're going to get away with them? Hell then is the place where you appropriately end up if you make all your decisions in the dark. As I posted further up the thread, that condition can apply as much to the here & now as to your posthumous eternity. Not reward & punishment — just cause & effect.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Sometimes people do in fact choose punishment, though. It's really a person's own choice, until he or she knows or learns different....
[ 23. June 2011, 16:29: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You are asking me to call the most evil being it is possible for me to imagine; one who tortures infinitely and repays minor evil with infinite evil. And then you have the neck to call him good, loving, and merciful.
I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have another go at the doctrine of eternal hell. Eternal hell is a dreadful mystery for everyone, the question is merely who or what is to blame. A number of classical arguments for eternal punishment are listed here by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange. It should be clear that a key prior point is the denial of Justinian's assertion that our sins are merely "finite" in effect (minor evil), and hence cannot incur "infinite" punishment (infinite evil). Arguments concerning this are given by ST Ia IIae q87, look at the sections "I answer that" in articles 3 & 4.
However, I think the key point here is that we do not understand eternal existence. As far as God is concerned at least, eternity is not an infinite amount of time. God does not live sequentially through one moment after the other. He lives "all at once" without beginning or end. Now assume that God would be dealing with eternal creatures like Himself, then saying "God punishes the wicked eternally." actually is precisely the same as saying "God punishes the wicked." Whereas the statement "God does not punish anyone eternally." is just the same as saying "God does not punish anyone." As long as one could justify any punishment at all, eternal punishment would be what the eternally wicked would deserve from God.
The difficulty consists in the fact that we are created as temporal creatures. Hence we - unlike God - measure life by the ticks of the clock, and eternal punishment then becomes a torture that lasts through an infinite number of moments. Yet we are not merely temporal creatures, or perhaps better, we shall become more. In order to truly see God in the beatific vision, one must somehow experience its bliss "all at once" without beginning and end. And in whatever way that is true, I suspect the damned also experience the lack of beatific vision, the pain of loss (which is the primary pain of hell) "all at once" without beginning and end. If one reports this in temporal terms, then this becomes an infinite time of agony, as in scripture and private revelations. But thinking in these terms does not do proper justice to eternity.
Perhaps what is really strange here is not the eternity of bliss or agony stemming from living "all at once" with or without God. Perhaps what is really strange is that there should be a temporal domain. Perhaps the real mystery is us: creatures that can and must make up their minds about God. Psalm 90 seems apposite.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Except that as several people have already mentioned on this thread, the choice is not necessarily "irrevocable" - which idea voids anything above that relies on that assumption.
Eternal suffering is irrevocable. Attempts to make it otherwise are sophistry.
quote:
But it looks like you don't want to consider that possibility. Which means that you've chosen this conception of God as the one you yourself prefer.
On the contrary. Hell is a doctrine at least as morally poisonous as the Prosperity Gospel. There are certain common Christian beliefs I strongly oppose because they do manifest harm to the world. Hell is merely the most theological and wide-spread one of them. (The other major ones I've run into commonly are Creationism and the Catholic approach to contraception). I believe none of them to be true and all of them to be extremely harmful. And what I would prefer is if the doctrines went away.
However it is telling that you think that what people believe is is what people prefer. I do my level best to practice empiricism and to test what I believe. You may create God in the image of your wishes - but I know the world doesn't follow mine.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have another go at the doctrine of eternal hell. Eternal hell is a dreadful mystery for everyone,
It is for some people. But certainly not for everyone.
There are groups of people that rejoyce in the suffering of others in hell (Left Behind springs to mind). To them Hell is neither dreadful nor a mystery. There are those who believe it because that is what they believe and what they have been taught (my friends who think this way are also Creationists). There are groups of people for whom it is not a dreadful mystery; it is simply nonsense as it is contrary to the nature of God. There are many who don't worry about theology and just focus on this life. There are people who take hope from the idea that their tormentors shall reap the whirlwind. To them Hell isn't a dreadful mystery.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that there's only one group of people to whom Hell is a dreadful mystery. Intellectually minded people who are attempting to square the circle by ascribing something vastly evil to something that's meant to be pure good.
quote:
It should be clear that a key prior point is the denial of Justinian's assertion that our sins are merely "finite" in effect (minor evil), and hence cannot incur "infinite" punishment (infinite evil).
And these denials are all based on the same fundamental premise - that some actions can cause others to screw up eternally and lose their relationship with God and end up in hell. Which turns the finite event into an infinite. And once again this comes down to God magnifying finite evils by condemning people to hell. All this excuse allows God to do is wash his hands of the evil perpetrated by the Law he himself wrote.
It also turns God into the Lord High Executioner from The Mikado ("The Object All Sublime, we will achieve in time; Let the punishment fit the crime, Let the punishment fit the crime!").
quote:
Arguments concerning this are given by ST Ia IIae q87, look at the sections "I answer that" in articles 3 & 4.
Believe it or not, this isn't the first time I've read that part of the Summa Theologica. And the same problem holds as mentioned above.
quote:
The difficulty consists in the fact that we are created as temporal creatures. Hence we - unlike God - measure life by the ticks of the clock, and eternal punishment then becomes a torture that lasts through an infinite number of moments.
And at the very heart of this defence is the assumption that the experience of the abuser not the abused is the one that matters. And we already have God the Abuser in play ("Honey? Why must you make me send you to be tortured? I'm only doing this for your own good.")
[ 23. June 2011, 19:33: Message edited by: Justinian ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And these denials are all based on the same fundamental premise - that some actions can cause others to screw up eternally and lose their relationship with God and end up in hell. Which turns the finite event into an infinite. And once again this comes down to God magnifying finite evils by condemning people to hell.
The classical argument given by Aquinas holds just the same whether there ever only was one single human being or instead a multitude of them (as is actually the case).
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Arguments concerning this are given by ST Ia IIae q87, look at the sections "I answer that" in articles 3 & 4.
Believe it or not, this isn't the first time I've read that part of the Summa Theologica. And the same problem holds as mentioned above.
The quoted arguments make no reference whatsoever to the potential effect of a sin on other humans, which is the problem you mentioned above. Hence I suggest that you read this part again, and a bit more carefully.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And at the very heart of this defence is the assumption that the experience of the abuser not the abused is the one that matters.
No, that's not right. I talked about the potential difference in experience between humans living in time (thus: us in this life) and humans living in some kind of "God-derived eternity" (thus: us as we shall be in the next life). The point was that eternal punishment for the eternally wicked can be justified to the same extent that temporal punishment can be justified for the temporally wicked. The difficulty is that we are somehow changing from one into the other, and we do not really understand this step. Without this understanding, it becomes more difficult to see clearly where justice may lie. I think it will be false to judge hell as if humans had always been eternal in some sense. However, I think it is also false to judge hell as if human will never be eternal in some sense. And I think that the latter is what you and indeed most people are doing nowadays.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
.....anyone who would choose eternal torment is not of sane mind and therefore has diminished responsibility. Especially as to be suffering eternal torment, the choice must be irrevocable. This also doesn't answer the question why God created Hell.
I don't think anybody chooses Hell — anymore than somebody who robs a bank chooses a 10-to-20 stretch. Surely people commit Hell-consigning deeds because they think they're going to get away with them?
It's not that people choose hell. It's that they simply don't agree that the results of what they are choosing to do are inherently painful. My experience is that this is not uncommon even in this life.
God didn't create hell. He made it possible for people to do what they wish, whether the results are more happy or less happy.
He even made it possible for people to make choices that aren't happy ones at all - and I think that most of us would be outraged beyond measure if He were to revoke that possibility.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The classical argument given by Aquinas holds just the same whether there ever only was one single human being or instead a multitude of them (as is actually the case).
Ah, right. I was just answering one, not both, sorry. In Aquinas' doctrine, punishment should last as long as the sin does - but given the eternal torment handed out by the Judge is it really likely that the Judge's actions are going to get people to turn to him through other than Stockholm Syndrome. Once more the punishment turns out to be a significant part of the problem; in this case fining someone financially for needing to steal a loaf of bread. The act of a God who is neither kind nor merciful, but instead repays even minor evil with great evil and calls it good. (And if anything is more effective at destroying charity than eternal torment, I know not what it is).
Once more we find that the only sin deserving of hell is to condemn someone to hell. And that is done by God, who once more gets to wash his hands with the claim "God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them." Given that God set up his scales of justice and chooses to make them what they are this is clearly a case of "I wish you wouldn't make me hit you."
quote:
No, that's not right. I talked about the potential difference in experience between humans living in time (thus: us in this life) and humans living in some kind of "God-derived eternity" (thus: us as we shall be in the next life). The point was that eternal punishment for the eternally wicked can be justified to the same extent that temporal punishment can be justified for the temporally wicked.
Ah, thanks for explaining. But to do what you want to you need to have a theory of why punishment is desirable at all. There are a handful of well-known justifications for punishment and IMO Hell fails at all of them.
1: Rehabilitation. Hell is Eternal. Therefore it can't rehabilitate.
2: Social Protection. Please. Not even remotely needed if you have God providing protection.
3: Deterrence/making an example. Perhaps. But it makes God into a mean and unimaginative God, willing to torture eternally to make a case.
4: Restoration. Hell doesn't even come close to being restorative.
5: Retribution. So the wronged victim can get a sense of satisfaction out of the suffering of others. Let me put that into context. Humans suffering gives the All-mighty a sense of satisfaction. For this to hold, God is a sadist.
I don't think I've missed any out (according to Wiki there's also education (which I consider rehabilitation) and public condemnation (lynch mobs of angels?)). So every justification for punishing the temporally wicked fails when applied to hell.
The difficulty is that we are somehow changing from one into the other, and we do not really understand this step. Without this understanding, it becomes more difficult to see clearly where justice may lie. I think it will be false to judge hell as if humans had always been eternal in some sense. However, I think it is also false to judge hell as if human will never be eternal in some sense. And I think that the latter is what you and indeed most people are doing nowadays. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I was just answering one, not both, sorry.
I do not understand what your prior answer had to do with either article I have quoted.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Once more the punishment turns out to be a significant part of the problem; in this case fining someone financially for needing to steal a loaf of bread. The act of a God who is neither kind nor merciful, but instead repays even minor evil with great evil and calls it good.
I'm sorry, but this has little to do with what Aquinas is discussing in article 3, which I think you are reacting to?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given that God set up his scales of justice and chooses to make them what they are this is clearly a case of "I wish you wouldn't make me hit you."
Well, He is the Creator.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
4: Restoration. Hell doesn't even come close to being restorative.
Indeed, restoration of God's order is what hell is about, at least in Aquinas' book. You have not explained why you think that hell fails at this.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So every justification for punishing the temporally wicked fails when applied to hell.
So far you have not shown that at all.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If hell exists and people are in hell then you can preach to me of God being love all you want. You are preaching to me of Joseph Fritzl being a good family man when you know and I know that all the time his daughter is in that basement.
The mere existence of an eternal hell is completely incompatable with any claim that the Creator is good, loving (let alone love), or even merciful.
I quite agree.
The doctrine is obviously wrong.
I think it's in the bible just to scare.
For some people, fear is the only thing they can respond to.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Except that as several people have already mentioned on this thread, the choice is not necessarily "irrevocable" - which idea voids anything above that relies on that assumption.
Eternal suffering is irrevocable. Attempts to make it otherwise are sophistry.
quote:
But it looks like you don't want to consider that possibility. Which means that you've chosen this conception of God as the one you yourself prefer.
On the contrary. Hell is a doctrine at least as morally poisonous as the Prosperity Gospel. There are certain common Christian beliefs I strongly oppose because they do manifest harm to the world. Hell is merely the most theological and wide-spread one of them. (The other major ones I've run into commonly are Creationism and the Catholic approach to contraception). I believe none of them to be true and all of them to be extremely harmful. And what I would prefer is if the doctrines went away.
However it is telling that you think that what people believe is is what people prefer. I do my level best to practice empiricism and to test what I believe. You may create God in the image of your wishes - but I know the world doesn't follow mine.
It's utterly bizarre that you're so obsessed with "doctrines" that so few people believe in or are affected by.
How does "the Catholic approach to contraception" do "manifest harm in the world" when nobody pays any attention to it? The last figure I saw on this was that worldwide, over 85% percent of Catholics use birth control; what are you getting so worked up about?
Likewise, Creationism has no real effect on anything; most people don't believe in it and it doesn't affect what's taught in schools, even in Kansas. Why are you making this into such a huge deal, when it isn't?
And here you insist that a "doctrine of Hell" that almost nobody holds is "pernicious" and "harmful" - and you won't listen when people right on this thread disagree with the conception you're putting forward. You call any other point of view "sophistry," in fact. In other words, you yourself agree with the fundamentalists - who are, again, a quite small minority of people.
Well, hope you're enjoying the company....
[ 24. June 2011, 02:19: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
Actually, I realize now what your last paragraph meant - I didn't understand it at first - and it seems really to be true that you believe that either the Bible is "correct" and to be taken flatly literally in its every pronouncement - or else the whole enterprise is "sophistry."
And that is quite bizarre, really, in somebody who at the same time claims to "practice empiricism." Beliefs about God are not "testable," you know; we can discuss them, but they're not subject to empirical "proof." So that seems to be a bit of a confused mix of ideas there; you think I'm engaging in "wishful thinking" about God because I don't agree with the fundamentalist take on Hell?
Sheesh. Really very strange.
(Apparently the figure in the U.S. is even higher, BTW: one recent study says that 98% of Catholic women use birth control. I think you can relax a bit on that one, at least.)
[ 24. June 2011, 02:40: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I do my level best to practice empiricism and to test what I believe.
Please would you expand on that? (Every time I read that sentence it just seems plain silly.)
How could you possibly isolate one particular belief from all other variables so that you could test it empirically?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There are a handful of well-known justifications for punishment and IMO Hell fails at all of them.
In my view hell isn't a punishment at all. Unhappiness is the consequence of a self-centered and materialistic life, and of the beliefs that support that kind of life.
The only issue is that this inherent joylessness is not readily apparent, so it needs to be taught.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In order to truly see God in the beatific vision
Other than to avoid eternal punishment, why would I want to do that?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In my view hell isn't a punishment at all. Unhappiness is the consequence of a self-centered and materialistic life, and of the beliefs that support that kind of life.
Are the only options really either (a) loving God and seeking through that love to do good deeds with no thought of personal gain or (b) being completely self-centered and materialistic?
Of course, I know plenty of people who are very self-centered and materialistic who are also perfectly happy and content with their lot. So apparently unhappiness isn't an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle unless you throw in a deity who decides to make damn sure that it is.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Are the only options really either (a) loving God and seeking through that love to do good deeds with no thought of personal gain or (b) being completely self-centered and materialistic?
No. It's an infinitely sliding scale. The Biblical descriptions of these things are hyperbole.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I know plenty of people who are very self-centered and materialistic who are also perfectly happy and content with their lot. So apparently unhappiness isn't an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle unless you throw in a deity who decides to make damn sure that it is.
Yes, unhappiness is an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle. But it is a consequence that tends to show up in the long term more than the short term.
So of course you know people who are self-centered and apparently perfectly content. We all do, and we all share that trait. Religion (and common sense) however warns us that its joys are illusory in the long term.
The point is, though, that it is not that God punishes anyone for living any particular way. Rather it is that the ways that people live, and think, and what they desire, are directly related to their subjective experience of fulfillment, satisfaction, joy, etc.
This is the simple formula that is meant by the terms "heaven" and "hell."
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, unhappiness is an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle. But it is a consequence that tends to show up in the long term more than the short term.
So of course you know people who are self-centered and apparently perfectly content. We all do, and we all share that trait. Religion (and common sense) however warns us that its joys are illusory in the long term.
You misunderstand me. I know old people like that who are perfectly happy. I have known people like that who have gone to a natural, peaceful grave without ever finding the joys of such a life to be illusory. How much more long-term do you want?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, I think the key point here is that we do not understand eternal existence. As far as God is concerned at least, eternity is not an infinite amount of time. God does not live sequentially through one moment after the other. He lives "all at once" without beginning or end. Now assume that God would be dealing with eternal creatures like Himself, then saying "God punishes the wicked eternally." actually is precisely the same as saying "God punishes the wicked." Whereas the statement "God does not punish anyone eternally." is just the same as saying "God does not punish anyone." As long as one could justify any punishment at all, eternal punishment would be what the eternally wicked would deserve from God.
That's a good point. I think it throws a spotlight on the fact that statements like "God punishes eternally" are ambiguous; it's not clear whether it's intended to mean that God eternally doles out punishment, or whether the punishments that God doles out are themselves eternal.
I suspect that in the Biblical and early church theology context, it's generally more likely to have meant the former than the latter.
How so? Well, the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville describes heavenly beings. Humans are mortal, but angels are immortal. However, in spite of angels being immortal, they are not eternal; there's only one being (in three persons) who can be said to have always been, and who always will be.
Whilst Isidore of Seville does not seem to spell out any implications of what this means for Christian resurrection hope, I'd have thought that given the stuff in Matthew 22:23-33 about resurrection making you like an angel, then, whatever limitations apply to angels, must also apply to resurrected people too.
So, if people are not made eternal, then it makes no sense to say that they experience punishment eternally. You might say that they experience eternal punishment - but that's not quite the same thing.
Eschatological jargon, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Eternal suffering is irrevocable. Attempts to make it otherwise are sophistry.
I think IngoB has just shown that a being that experiences a punishment that "eternal" is not necessarily itself an eternal being.
However, one of the problems with describing punishment as "eternal", in my opinion, is that it concedes that there is something eternal other than the one God in three persons. If the only eternal being is God, then how can it be possible for punishment to be eternal?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There are groups of people that rejoyce in the suffering of others in hell (Left Behind springs to mind).
As does the EA game about hell. I for one think that the poem of Dante's Inferno absolutely rocks, although I haven't played the game yet.
Just think - if no-one had thought up the idea of hell, then our culture would be that much worse off. So let's not get too iconoclastic about hell.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You misunderstand me. I know old people like that who are perfectly happy. I have known people like that who have gone to a natural, peaceful grave without ever finding the joys of such a life to be illusory. How much more long-term do you want?
In the first place I don't think that any of us can speak with confidence about other people's happiness. I'm talking about what I believe to be the case, and I could certainly be wrong. I also know plenty of people and stories that anecdotaly confirm the point of view that a self-centered materialistic lifestyle is inherently joyless in the long run.
If you say that you know old people who have pursued a self-centered materialistic lifestyle and yet are perfectly happy and content then that is fine with me. Maybe it disproves my belief. But no one knows the subjective experience of other people, so it is hard to know these things with confidence.
My point is that we don't need to understand the biblical promises of heaven and hell in terms of a God who punishes. Rather, we live in a physical, and also a spiritual, environment that is governed by stable laws. Stability means predictable cause and effect relationships in both our external world and our subjective internal experience.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
So, if people are not made eternal, then it makes no sense to say that they experience punishment eternally. You might say that they experience eternal punishment - but that's not quite the same thing.
But people are going to be made eternal in a sense, or at least that's the traditional Christian teaching about divinization. Obviously people are not going to be eternal in the proper sense, since only God can be always existent. However, people are going to be made like gods, share in God's life, behold Him in beatific vision, be collectively the body to Christ the Head, etc. In some way or the other then, people are going to be interfaced with or grafted onto Divine life, which happens to be eternal in the proper sense: without beginning or end "all at once".
In a thought experiment involving wicked eternal creatures, eternal punishment by God due to their eternally evil acts would be nothing special as far as justice is concerned. Admittedly, there cannot be any properly eternal creatures. However, we will apparently get "upgraded" to some participation in eternal life, while maintaining personal identity with our temporal life. The question then is to what extent our temporal wickedness consequently gets "upgraded" with us to some participation in eternal life, and hence to some eternal punishment.
I do not claim that I understand this. I do not even claim that this would "solve" the problem of hell if one did understand it. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - I don't know. But I do claim that this is a serious issue that always gets swept under the carpet when one simply counts hell as an infinite number of tortured days and weighs that against an apparently finite amount of evil done in this world. (Whether the latter is true is a different question again.)
Another question that deserves attention in this context is whether there can be "evil by design", or whether we are not stretching the moral framework beyond its proper limits with such judgements. If God designed us all to have an eternal fate of some description, even though He is fully aware that for some of us this will mean that we will end in eternal torture, can we then claim that this is an "evil by design"? Can we maintain this claim even if the consequence of eternal torture results from free and informed choices we have made within these design parameters (of which God is merely aware in advance due to His eternal nature)? How idiot-proof does God's design have to be to be acceptable? Does God have to comply with health & safety regulations? Whose and why?
Frankly, I think of the last chapters of Job with all this. I do not think that I have grasped the essence of what's going on. Actually, I suspect that what we humans demand of God here is to make square circles. And perhaps it is not eternity that we are confused about so much, but rather time...
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's utterly bizarre that you're so obsessed with "doctrines" that so few people believe in or are affected by.
It must be nice to be as insular as you are. I know people who passionately hold all three doctrines I have mentioned, and let them affect their way of life and the way they treat others.
quote:
How does "the Catholic approach to contraception" do "manifest harm in the world" when nobody pays any attention to it?
From first and second hand knowledge, I disagree that nobody pays any attention to it. The two cases that spring to mind that I have personal knowledge are are (i) a friend on the board of an international aid charity doing her best to prevent it having anythng to do with contraception in sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) some fuckwit getting the free condom box removed from a friend's college by using a needle on all the condoms (that one might not have been linked to Catholicism).
quote:
The last figure I saw on this was that worldwide, over 85% percent of Catholics use birth control; what are you getting so worked up about?
Um... that 15% of Catholics is more than 150 million people.
quote:
Likewise, Creationism has no real effect on anything; most people don't believe in it and it doesn't affect what's taught in schools, even in Kansas.
It is in a few places in the UK (where I live). And I know a few Americans who were raised as creationists. It's much more minor than the other two, granted.
quote:
Why are you making this into such a huge deal, when it isn't?
I mentioned it as a pernicious doctrine and it is.
quote:
And here you insist that a "doctrine of Hell" that almost nobody holds
You mean the doctrine of Hell that is a historic teaching of the Church? The one IngoB is dredging up Roman Catholic apologetics for? The one the Southern Baptists just reaffirmed? As normal, you are writing off a huge chunk of Christians.
quote:
is "pernicious" and "harmful" - and you won't listen when people right on this thread disagree with the conception you're putting forward.
I listen. (And will clarify again for IngoB later). However Hell has certain meanings. And many of the attempts to justify Hell are in fact attempts to turn it into something else.
quote:
You call any other point of view "sophistry," in fact.
False. I call certain attempts to claim both Hell and a Loving God sophistry. People who openly claim that modern conceptions of Hell are an extra-biblical conceit owing little to the cannonical Bible, or simply incompatible with the nature of a loving God are not being sophists. Evensong, for instance, is not being a sophist when she (I think?) says the doctrine is obviously wrong. (I object to her claiming that I chose to believe in such a God, but that's a different issue).
quote:
In other words, you yourself agree with the fundamentalists - who are, again, a quite small minority of people.
No. I think the fundamentalists are wrong. I think you are not even wrong.
quote:
Well, hope you're enjoying the company....
It's certainly much more interesting company than your little circle of like-minded people that denies that other people exist even when they are posting right here on this thread.
For the record you are completely wrong about that final paragraph of mine (for one thing I'm not disagreeing with anyone who considers the doctrine of Hell to be extra-biblical or just complete crap whether biblical or not).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In order to truly see God in the beatific vision
Other than to avoid eternal punishment, why would I want to do that?
Because that provides final and perfect happiness? I'll take your share if you don't want yours. I'll even cook you some red pottage in exchange.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But people are going to be made eternal in a sense, or at least that's the traditional Christian teaching about divinization. Obviously people are not going to be eternal in the proper sense, since only God can be always existent. However, people are going to be made like gods, share in God's life, behold Him in beatific vision, be collectively the body to Christ the Head, etc. In some way or the other then, people are going to be interfaced with or grafted onto Divine life, which happens to be eternal in the proper sense: without beginning or end "all at once".
I thought grasping at God/s was supposed to be the reason for "the fall".
quote:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[qb] Are the only options really either (a) loving God and seeking through that love to do good deeds with no thought of personal gain or (b) being completely self-centered and materialistic?
No. It's an infinitely sliding scale. The Biblical descriptions of these things are hyperbole.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, I know plenty of people who are very self-centered and materialistic who are also perfectly happy and content with their lot. So apparently unhappiness isn't an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle unless you throw in a deity who decides to make damn sure that it is.
Yes, unhappiness is an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle. But it is a consequence that tends to show up in the long term more than the short term.
So of course you know people who are self-centered and apparently perfectly content. We all do, and we all share that trait. Religion (and common sense) however warns us that its joys are illusory in the long term.
---------------------------
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought grasping at God/s was supposed to be the reason for "the fall".
There is a difference between stealing and receiving a gift. 2 Peter 1:4 is the key verse and the agreement of Church Father and later tradition, East and West, is strong. Try Wikipedia for a start, if you are really unfamiliar with the concept.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's certainly much more interesting company than your little circle of like-minded people that denies that other people exist even when they are posting right here on this thread.
Hey, I exist and have posted right here on this thread.
Would you answer my question please?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought grasping at God/s was supposed to be the reason for "the fall".
There is a difference between stealing and receiving a gift. 2 Peter 1:4 is the key verse and the agreement of Church Father and later tradition, East and West, is strong. Try Wikipedia for a start, if you are really unfamiliar with the concept.
The Peter reference and Wikipedia article have no reference to Genesis.
Try the bible if you're unfamiliar with the idea that originally becoming like God was not what God wanted.
[ 24. June 2011, 14:25: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
So, if people are not made eternal, then it makes no sense to say that they experience punishment eternally. You might say that they experience eternal punishment - but that's not quite the same thing.
But people are going to be made eternal in a sense, or at least that's the traditional Christian teaching about divinization. Obviously people are not going to be eternal in the proper sense, since only God can be always existent. However, people are going to be made like gods, share in God's life, behold Him in beatific vision, be collectively the body to Christ the Head, etc. In some way or the other then, people are going to be interfaced with or grafted onto Divine life, which happens to be eternal in the proper sense: without beginning or end "all at once".
Hmm. Whilst I don't disagree with you, I suspect that a lot of people might think that conflating "resurrection" with "apotheosis" is highly heretical. When we rise from the dead, we become gods? A lot of people would see that as undermining monotheism, in my opinion.
But the Bible and traditional theology doesn't seem to have a problem referring to angels as gods. It even refers to resurrected people as gods in places - and says that when people rise from the dead, they become like angels.
However, a distinction is still made between this kind of godliness, and the godliness of the One God in Three Persons. I don't think there's anywhere that the Bible or early Christian writings ascribe what we might call "eternity" to angels, saints or martyrs. Immortality, yes, but eternity? Well, if it's there, I'd be interested to see it.
Perhaps there's also a distinction to be made between "rising to immortal life", "rising to everlasting life" and "rising to eternal life".
Indeed, it could be argued that the expression "rising to eternal life" might not necessarily have been intended to mean that the being that rises becomes an eternal being.
Trouble is, once we concede that point, then we must also concede that "living an eternal life" does not necessarily mean that you won't die - which does rather seem to undermine Christianity's ability to offer an afterlife hope, in spite of the resurrection.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It must be nice to be as insular as you are....blah blah blah....
The two cases that spring to mind that I have personal knowledge are are (i) a friend on the board of an international aid charity doing her best to prevent it having anythng to do with contraception in sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) some fuckwit getting the free condom box removed from a friend's college by using a needle on all the condoms (that one might not have been linked to Catholicism)....blah blah blah...
Um... that 15% of Catholics is more than 150 million people.... blah, blah, blah
However Hell has certain meanings. And many of the attempts to justify Hell are in fact attempts to turn it into something else.....blah, blah, blah....
For the record you are completely wrong about that final paragraph of mine (for one thing I'm not disagreeing with anyone who considers the doctrine of Hell to be extra-biblical or just complete crap whether biblical or not)....blah, blah, blah....
Let's see. The Catholic Church also teaches that pre- and extra-marital sex is wrong - yet you're obsessed with its "approach to contraception." That's interesting, since if people in "sub-Saharan Africa" (or anywhere else) followed the first doctrine, the second wouldn't be a problem. See what I mean?
And gee, BTW: is it all right with you if "150 million Catholics" choose how they wish to approach their own marriage and childbearing life without your input? Or do you demand they accede to your wishes on the matter, because you think what they're doing is "manifestly harmful"? (How does that work, again, BTW?)
And is it OK with you if other people don't go along with your particular views on Creationism? Why do you demand they change? People believe in all sorts of things in the world, you know. Going to crusade against astrology next?
You might want to recognize that the Church has no real compulsive power in the world anymore - no real power of any kind, in fact - so that people who believe certain things might have decided for themselves that they wish to believe them. Ingo has a point of view; he's chosen it himself. He might be right, in fact. How about granting that other people have the right to understand things the way they wish to, without needing your input?
You could actually be wrong, you know - or, at the very least, you could be completely missing out on things you can't see and/or don't understand.
P.S. You're talking about "ideas" here; it's really not about "empiricism." Please at least recognize this.
[ 24. June 2011, 16:24: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Who can guess at what the original authors meant by this line? I can speculate that God had His mind on Redemption, and having an infinite number of years in Adam and Eve's fallen state would not have been a terribly pleasant proposition.
Zach
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
This is George Spigot's point of view, Justinian. I haven't noticed anybody on the thread calling it "pernicious" and "manifestly harmful." George Spigot actually has the right to understand things the way he prefers to without interference from you or anybody else. Others are talking with him about it, since he seems to want to talk (he started the thread, after all), but I don't notice any coercion going on.
(I did notice, however, on another thread, that you complained about Jehovah's Witnesses (or somebody) knocking on your door to try to convert you. Seems to me that you're engaged in the same behavior here - all the talk of "perniciousness" and "manifest harm" does seem to be a serious attempt at persuasion of other to adopt your point of view. Of course, you haven't actually given any evidence for these claims of harm; do tell - and chapter and verse, please....)
[ 24. June 2011, 16:44: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Peter reference and Wikipedia article have no reference to Genesis. Try the bible if you're unfamiliar with the idea that originally becoming like God was not what God wanted.
I'm quite familiar with God not allowing man to usurp God-like status, which is a fool's errand anyhow, and the opposite of God elevating man to God-like status by the gift of His sanctifying grace. If you are interested in what others actually mean by the doctrine, here is a short and readable write-up by a layperson. Theosis has important ramification concerning the Incarnation, among other things. If you are not interested, then that's fine - but there's no need to throw a bible at us.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Hmm. Whilst I don't disagree with you, I suspect that a lot of people might think that conflating "resurrection" with "apotheosis" is highly heretical. When we rise from the dead, we become gods? A lot of people would see that as undermining monotheism, in my opinion.
It's not "apotheosis" but "theosis", the latter meaning the specific Christian sense of "becoming like God" (as opposed to say Greek and Egyptian conceptions). Please check the link above for a brief clarification of what is meant thereby, and what not. Divinization in one form or the other is the official teaching of the RCC and the the Eastern Orthodox, as well as represented among Anglicans, Methodists, etc. It is also unequivocal among the Church Fathers and reasonably clear in scripture (some additional verses are mentioned at the link). If there is a viable accusation of heresy here, then it is not difficult to see to whom it shall apply... I think though that mostly this doctrine has been forgotten among some Protestants, not really explicitly denied.
I should mention though that the "eternalization" I've been talking about could only be a feature of the theosis of the blessed, since for the damned it is the lack of theosis which is their primary punishment. My talk about some participation in God's eternity is hence a "larger" concept than theosis. And I've allowed myself freedom to speculate about that. Thus what I've been talking about with regards to hell is not identical with traditional concepts of theosis, just in tune with these (I hope).
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Good point. I've never really understood how us knowing about good and evil undermines God's authority either.
I suppose that if I did know how it undermines God's authority, then I'd be able to - wait for it - yes, use that knowledge to undermine God's authority. Whoopeedoo! Lucky me!
However, the fact that I don't understand how it enables me to undermine God's authority, means that I suppose God has got nothing to worry about. Which is just as well for him, I suppose.
Posted by Keromaru (# 15757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Good point. I've never really understood how us knowing about good and evil undermines God's authority either.
I suppose that if I did know how it undermines God's authority, then I'd be able to - wait for it - yes, use that knowledge to undermine God's authority. Whoopeedoo! Lucky me!
However, the fact that I don't understand how it enables me to undermine God's authority, means that I suppose God has got nothing to worry about. Which is just as well for him, I suppose.
I kind of think of it in terms of how the Bible usually understands knowledge. Not in terms of having accurate information, but having intimate experience with the subject. So, in a sense, having knowledge of good and evil may mean to be and experience good and evil.
Of course, I also like Richard Rohr's take, which is that the story reflects the introduction of dualism into human thought.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's not "apotheosis" but "theosis", the latter meaning the specific Christian sense of "becoming like God" (as opposed to say Greek and Egyptian conceptions). Please check the link above for a brief clarification of what is meant thereby, and what not. Divinization in one form or the other is the official teaching of the RCC and the the Eastern Orthodox, as well as represented among Anglicans, Methodists, etc. It is also unequivocal among the Church Fathers and reasonably clear in scripture (some additional verses are mentioned at the link).
That's as may be - but it seems to me that it's still hard to square all this with "monotheism" - although I suspect you'd be right to assume that this is harder in Protestant tradition than in other traditions.
I could be wrong on this - but I guess that when a tradition has a strongly established angelology, then you've already got a framework for understanding a distinction between angels and God - and the doctrine of theosis might be able to build on that, and is not seen as a threat to monotheism.
But when the angelology is removed, then theosis is much more likely to be read in a polytheistic way, and therefore assumed to be heretical (even if it isn't).
Protestant and Evangelical tradition has come from a tradition that has railed against the iconography of saints and angels, on the grounds that it's deemed to be idolatry. This has resulted in some churches adopting a liturgy that pointedly avoids mentioning saints and angels at all. I was once embarrassed in an evangelical church after doing a New Testament reading, because I naively introduced it as "Saint Paul" rather than just "Paul".
So, yeah, angelology is much more in the background, to the point that acknowledging angels can sometimes be seen as a threat to monotheism. So if you find that Protestants and Evangelicals are flummoxed by theosis in a way that other traditions are not, then I think that history of suspicion of idolatry probably explains why.
However, the point I'm really trying to make is that the distinction between angels and God - that only God is eternal, and even angels aren't eternal in the way that God is - can be used to squash the idea of "eternal punishment". But once you start to admit that angels and/or resurrected people might be eternal after all, then that argument doesn't really work any more.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
To back what up? That materialistic and self-centered pleasures are not so joyful in the long run? Or that religion teaches this?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Good point. I've never really understood how us knowing about good and evil undermines God's authority either.
I suppose that if I did know how it undermines God's authority, then I'd be able to - wait for it - yes, use that knowledge to undermine God's authority. Whoopeedoo! Lucky me!
However, the fact that I don't understand how it enables me to undermine God's authority, means that I suppose God has got nothing to worry about. Which is just as well for him, I suppose.
I kind of think of it in terms of how the Bible usually understands knowledge. Not in terms of having accurate information, but having intimate experience with the subject. So, in a sense, having knowledge of good and evil may mean to be and experience good and evil.
Of course, I also like Richard Rohr's take, which is that the story reflects the introduction of dualism into human thought.
Indeed, the meaning of this verse is that God is concerned that if the pair, having experienced good and evil should now take hhold of the tree of life, they would live eternally in that fallen state. The expulsion from the garden was an act of terrible mercy in order that, in their mortality they might be redeemed by the seed of the woman (Christ) and that eternal life might be given through grace, not through their own grasping of the tree of life.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
I kind of think of it in terms of how the Bible usually understands knowledge. Not in terms of having accurate information, but having intimate experience with the subject. So, in a sense, having knowledge of good and evil may mean to be and experience good and evil.
Of course, I also like Richard Rohr's take, which is that the story reflects the introduction of dualism into human thought.
Indeed, the meaning of this verse is that God is concerned that if the pair, having experienced good and evil should now take hhold of the tree of life, they would live eternally in that fallen state. The expulsion from the garden was an act of terrible mercy in order that, in their mortality they might be redeemed by the seed of the woman (Christ) and that eternal life might be given through grace, not through their own grasping of the tree of life.
Hmm. Nope. Still utterly confused. All I can assume is that it's probably got some association with the Tree of Life in the book of Revelation, and with Yggdrasil in Norse mythology.
So perhaps there's an eschatological theme; something that happens to the tree will have something to do with the renewal of the heavens and the earth.
But perhaps the idea that the Fountain of Mimir is the source of all wisdom in Midgard is a related idea. A common theme between the Genesis story, and the story of Odin at the Fountain of Mimir, seems to be that if you want wisdom, you can have it, but you have to pay a very high price for it.
However, the idea that someone who engages in that transaction must be morally lacking or "sinful", seems to be a peculiarly Christian idea. By contrast, in Norse myth, the fact that Odin pays this high price for his wisdom seems to be considered to be to his credit - much like the death of a martyr is considered to be "glorious", rather than a form of punishment for his sins.
Mind you, that might be because of another difference between the way the story is handled in Norse and Christian myth. In Norse mythology, humanity in general is not thought to have picked up the tab from Odin's action; on the contrary, Odin shared the benefit he gained from "eating" the equivalent of the "fruit" of the "tree" with the whole of humanity, in a way that Adam and Eve are not thought to have done.
Still doesn't make it any clearer, though, but I think it's interesting to try to look at it from different points of view.
[ 24. June 2011, 21:49: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
No, there is no link with Gensis and the Norse myths.
Simply put:
In the garden there are two special trees - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.
Adam and Eve are created and given the instruction not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The reason for this is that it's not just knowing about good and evil, it's experiencing it in the way God does - and losing their innocence.
So they eat the fruit and their eyes are opened and they lose their innocence and their fellowship with God.
However there is a way back to that fellowship - God says that the seed (singular) of the woman will bruise Satan's head (Christ will defeat death).
The Lord then expels the pair from the garden before they can eat of the tree of life - for such an act will give them eternal life but, because they are unredeemed, it will be an eternity of being unredeemed. They will live forever in a state of sin.
It is better that they remain mortal so that salvation can be given by grace and that the benefits of the tree of life can be given by faith and that eternal life can come with redemption.
The tree of life reappears in revelation as the place where there is healing for the nations. Life abundant is given in God';s kingdomw, brought in by the redemption of Christ.
It's a poetic way of saying that eternal life cannot be gained by our own actions, it must be given bu grace.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's certainly much more interesting company than your little circle of like-minded people that denies that other people exist even when they are posting right here on this thread.
Hey, I exist and have posted right here on this thread.
That's what all the voices in my head would have me believe if I let them.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To back what up?
That unhappiness is an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle.
And that common sense warns us that its joys are illusory in the long term.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
That's what all the voices in my head would have me believe if I let them.
So just listen to my voices then - they speak the truth.
Problem solved.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Peter reference and Wikipedia article have no reference to Genesis.
Try the bible if you're unfamiliar with the idea that originally becoming like God was not what God wanted.
Even though I don't come from the theosis tradition I can see clearly that when Ingo quotes Peter about 'participating in the divine nature' he does not mean that we will possess all the attributes of God.
Such attributes we will not possess include (presumably) creating the world and determining what is good and what is evil (as cited in Genesis 3).
Genesis 3 is very specific about which attribute God did not want the man and woman to become like him in.
You do realise that such a prohibition does not rule out becoming like him in other ways and attributes don't you? Sheesh. This is simple comprehension.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Peter reference and Wikipedia article have no reference to Genesis. Try the bible if you're unfamiliar with the idea that originally becoming like God was not what God wanted.
I'm quite familiar with God not allowing man to usurp God-like status, which is a fool's errand anyhow, and the opposite of God elevating man to God-like status by the gift of His sanctifying grace.
There is no mention of usurping in Gen 3-4. The worst Eve could be blamed for is wanting to become wise like her creator. Does not a child always want to grow up/into being more like his/her parent?
Re theosis. A load of nonsense IMO. Particularly this:
quote:
we cannot become God by nature,; yet in a certain sense the divinized do "become God" by grace since they participate in the Divine Nature). Saint Basil the Great taught that "the highest of all things desired (is) to become God" by the power of the Holy Spirit 3. According to Saint Gregory Nazianzen, the Risen Christ "still pleads even now as Man for my salvation, for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His Incarnation" 4.
Makes no sense. Particularly the mechanism by which this occurs via the incarnation. Jesus' two natures in perfect unity somehow making me into God?
Grace is Grace. God can bestow Grace whenever and however God desires.
Theosis, IMO, is not a doctrine that has any strong biblical foundation.
[ 25. June 2011, 02:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
That part always cracks me up.
What's the matter god? Scared of a little competition?
Cracks me up too.
Too many people on the divine council already it would seem.
Don't forget God uses the term "like us". We're still before pure monotheism here.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no mention of usurping in Gen 3-4. The worst Eve could be blamed for is wanting to become wise like her creator. Does not a child always want to grow up/into being more like his/her parent?
Your parents, I hope, taught you the difference between right and wrong. However, they did not, I hope, teach you that morality for the whole universe was determined by them.
The history of the human race is our usurping of God's authority in this way ... did God really say?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your parents, I hope, taught you the difference between right and wrong.
Yes. Just like Adam and Eve learnt from their parent. Before the apple, they did not know.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, they did not, I hope, teach you that morality for the whole universe was determined by them.
Where is the analogy in Gen 3-4 for this?
Where does it say Adam and Eve believed they determined morality for the whole universe.? It just says they became wise and knew good and evil like God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Of course, I also like Richard Rohr's take, which is that the story reflects the introduction of dualism into human thought.
Thanks for this. I like Rohr. Will put it on my reading list.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Where is the analogy in Gen 3-4 for this?
Where does it say Adam and Eve believed they determined morality for the whole universe.? It just says they became wise and knew good and evil like God.
There is no analogy.
Up to that point in the story there was only good. Indeed the writer goes out of his way to point that out in Genesis 1. God knew both good and evil theoretically because he determines what is good and therefore what is not good = evil.
The man and woman only knew such things experientially, so up to this point they only knew good. The Hebrew verb for know is also a euphemism for sex in the OT.
God can 'know' evil in the sense that he gets to call what is not good by that name. The man and woman only got to know evil by experiencing it.
The irony of the Genesis 3 account is that the man and woman were reaching out for the knowledge of good and evil in God's authoritative sense but ended up getting what they desired, yet only by getting to experience it.
[ 25. June 2011, 05:14: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think I would say that God knows good and evil because he experiences it eternally in the most profound way.
You are correct in saying that 'to know' is often a euphemism for sex, but I would perhaps broaden that definition by suggesting it means 'intimate knowledge' rather than the sex act.
In this way God 'knows' good and evil intimately and personally; he decides what to tell us is good or evil because he knows the character of each.
It seems to me that at the heart of good and evil there is life and death. Goodness = life, evil = death.
God experiences life and death eternally - there is an experience of death in the Godhead even before humankind is created - the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. God eternally suffers death within his own being.
When he spoke about 'they will become like us, knowing good and evil,' God was referring to the potential that they would experience death eternally, as he does.
That is why we are expelled from the garden, so that redemption and eternal life can come to us, by the death of God on the cross, so that death loses its hold on us and we can have eternal life.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Up to that point in the story there was only good. Indeed the writer goes out of his way to point that out in Genesis 1. God knew both good and evil theoretically because he determines what is good and therefore what is not good = evil.
The man and woman only knew such things experientially, so up to this point they only knew good.
I can't see this at all. To be human is to be able to choose between good and evil. Were Adam and Eve not human?
If they didn't know the difference between good and evil, how were they any different from the animals?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
It's not about knowing the difference between good and evil - that's not what the text says. It's the knowledge - the intimate knowledge of good and evil that was being denied them. God was protecting them from death.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not about knowing the difference between good and evil - that's not what the text says. It's the knowledge - the intimate knowledge of good and evil that was being denied them. God was protecting them from death.
I don't get that either, death is essential. Stop death happening and new life will never grow. Soil and life cycles are an essential part of life on Earth. Without the rock/soil/water/air/life cycles there would be no life - Earth would be like Mars - a lifeless, barren planet.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's not about knowing the difference between good and evil - that's not what the text says. It's the knowledge - the intimate knowledge of good and evil that was being denied them. God was protecting them from death.
I don't get that either, death is essential. Stop death happening and new life will never grow. Soil and life cycles are an essential part of life on Earth. Without the rock/soil/water/air/life cycles there would be no life - Earth would be like Mars - a lifeless, barren planet.
I don't think we're talking physical death here.
We're speaking about an experience of death that is a separation, an enduring sense of brokenness and fdarkness. Just look at the reaction of Adam and deve to God when he came walking in the garden. That was their death - shame, fear, guilt, reproach and bitterness. We 'die' when we absent ourselves from God and that death is unbreakable, unless it's by God himself.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't think we're talking physical death here.
We're speaking about an experience of death that is a separation, an enduring sense of brokenness and darkness. Just look at the reaction of Adam and eve to God when he came walking in the garden. That was their death - shame, fear, guilt, reproach and bitterness. We 'die' when we absent ourselves from God and that death is unbreakable, unless it's by God himself.
Yes - I understand that. But that doesn't require a literal Adam and Eve, does it?
I also think that we can play our part in reconnecting with God - it is possible if we move towards God, as S/he never leaves us. God's love is there 100% of the time - our lack of acceptance and recognition of it is 'broken' part imo.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't think we're talking physical death here.
We're speaking about an experience of death that is a separation, an enduring sense of brokenness and darkness. Just look at the reaction of Adam and eve to God when he came walking in the garden. That was their death - shame, fear, guilt, reproach and bitterness. We 'die' when we absent ourselves from God and that death is unbreakable, unless it's by God himself.
Yes - I understand that. But that doesn't require a literal Adam and Eve, does it?
I also think that we can play our part in reconnecting with God - it is possible if we move towards God, as S/he never leaves us. God's love is there 100% of the time - our lack of acceptance and recognition of it is 'broken' part imo.
Personally I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve but I wouldn't make it an article of faith necessarily. I think that what the gensis story tells us is this:
Man has deliberately chosen to ignore God's injunctions, given for his own good.
Man has discovered that he has made a huge error.
Man is unable to 'get back into the Garden' even though through many means he has tried.
God has provided the way to get back - through being himself that means, using the very thing that destroyed our relationship with him - death itself.
We have a choce, as we always have had, to re-establish our relationship with the creator, but we cannot do ity ourselves - only he can remove the effects of death.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
Did your parents, knowing and understanding a lot more about life, allow you just to do what you wanted?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To back what up?
That unhappiness is an inevitable consequence of such a lifestyle.
And that common sense warns us that its joys are illusory in the long term.
I don't think it's worth trying to back up those ideas. I think that everyone knows them.
I think that all of us tend to think that we will be happy if we can just get more money, live an easy and comfortable lifestyle, take care of ourselves, acquire the things that we want and need, and do things that are fun.
At the same time I think that we all know, at least intellectually, that life is really more fulfilling if lived for some purpose greater than ourselves, and if it involves doing things that are of service to others and to the community.
Everyone knows that it is better to give than to receive, and no one likes self-centered people.
If you don't agree with that then maybe my premise is faulty. In any case, my premise is that joy and sorrow are inherent in how a person lives and in their motivations.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
You clearly have greater faith in God's existence and God's capabilities than me - because I thought that the whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by an imperial propaganda department to keep us dependent on the empire, so that we may continue to pay their taxes and/or fight in their armies, rather than be free to be and do what we want.
I grant that a minor complication in this is that empires have fallen, and new ones have risen to take their place - but that does not appear to have stopped the new empires from re-appropriating the spin of the old ones for their own purposes. After all, when all is said and done, all empires are pretty much the same; they all want us to pay their taxes, and they all want us to fight in their armies.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did your parents, knowing and understanding a lot more about life, allow you just to do what you wanted?
Course they didn't. But that doesn't stop me from being sceptical of the idea that I owe my existence to the state. On the contrary, it makes me even more sceptical of it - because I feel that I owe a greater loyalty to my family than I do to the state. And since I regard God as an invention of the state, I feel that I owe greater loyalty to my family than I do to God for the same reason.
[ 25. June 2011, 10:39: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Not sure, Freddy. Equating happiness and personal material well-being seems a pretty common opinion. Of course our culture has had the benefit of the Sermon on the Mount for 2 millennia, and it has always been seen to point to better, purer in heart, ways of looking at materialism and selfishness. But it wasn't exactly a "given" until it was "given", if you see what I mean.
Of course you and I share a common view of these things, which is great. I'm just not sure that such scrupulousness is all that common a view any more. And even when it was, it often got a lot of lip service, while folks went ahead and did "their own thing" anyway.
We can't really get away from the fact that Christian belief holds in tension both a universally high "made in the image of God" view of humankind and a universally low "all have sinned and fallen short" view of humankind. We work stuff out between those two polarities; seems to me we get in a mess if we lose sight of either one of them. We're scarily capable of confirming both polarities by our best and worst behaviour. Any one of us.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Even though I don't come from the theosis tradition I can see clearly that when Ingo quotes Peter about 'participating in the divine nature' he does not mean that we will possess all the attributes of God.
Such attributes we will not possess include (presumably) creating the world and determining what is good and what is evil (as cited in Genesis 3).
Genesis 3 is very specific about which attribute God did not want the man and woman to become like him in.
You do realise that such a prohibition does not rule out becoming like him in other ways and attributes don't you? Sheesh. This is simple comprehension.
Yes, agreed. This is part of the reason why I think theosis might be seen to contradict monotheism.
However, to be fair, I don't think that IngoB was trying to argue that theosis does mean that you take on all the attributes of God at the resurrection. The doctrine of theosis doesn't deny that there's still a distinction to be made between God and angels, and between God and resurrected people.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no mention of usurping in Gen 3-4. The worst Eve could be blamed for is wanting to become wise like her creator. Does not a child always want to grow up/into being more like his/her parent?
Very good point.
However, I still think it needs to be said that when the distinction between God/gods and people is seen primarily in terms of people being mortal, and gods being immortal, then, as soon as you start talking about any kind of afterlife or resurrection that might be eternal, you blur that distinction.
So, really, we're just talking about semantics here. It seems there are scales of eternality. It's not as simple as saying that a thing is either eternal or it isn't, because some eternal things are more eternal than other eternal things. A thing can be slightly eternal, or it can be very eternal.
So the question is, how much can your eternal life be eternal, before it makes you indistinguishable from the eternal God? Can it be very eternal? Or can it only be a little bit eternal? And how would we arrange things in order of greater-to-lesser eternality?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not sure, Freddy. Equating happiness and personal material well-being seems a pretty common opinion.
Certainly all of us tend that way. And I'm not criticizing the need that everyone has to provide for our material well-being. We are no good to anyone if we don't do that.
But, Christianity aside, I don't know of any culture or religion that celebrates self-centered behavior. While many if not most cultures celebrate materialism and material success, criticism of greed and of "the rich" is almost universal.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
There is no analogy.
Up to that point in the story there was only good. Indeed the writer goes out of his way to point that out in Genesis 1. God knew both good and evil theoretically because he determines what is good and therefore what is not good = evil.
The man and woman only knew such things experientially, so up to this point they only knew good. The Hebrew verb for know is also a euphemism for sex in the OT.
God can 'know' evil in the sense that he gets to call what is not good by that name. The man and woman only got to know evil by experiencing it.
Your interpretation is one I have never heard before so it's interesting. But I don't think it stands up to the text.
You say Adam and Eve experience evil. This is not apparent from the text. Unless evil is becoming wise.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Man has deliberately chosen to ignore God's injunctions, given for his own good.
This is where your argument falls down Mudfrog.
Unless of course, you think becoming more like God is a bad thing.
There is a contradiction here Mudfrog.
You claim to be biblically based.
I recommend re-reading the passage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
That's right - you are quoting the Serpent pretty much verbatim.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
However, to be fair, I don't think that IngoB was trying to argue that theosis does mean that you take on all the attributes of God at the resurrection. The doctrine of theosis doesn't deny that there's still a distinction to be made between God and angels, and between God and resurrected people.
I know.
That is why I was posting in defence of Ingo.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your interpretation is one I have never heard before so it's interesting. But I don't think it stands up to the text.
You say Adam and Eve experience evil. This is not apparent from the text. Unless evil is becoming wise.
How is directly disobeying a command of God not (in a Hebrew bible) supposed to be viewed by the reader as evil?
Let's stick with the text. Which specifically states that it the godlike quality is 'knowing good and evil'.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But, Christianity aside, I don't know of any culture or religion that celebrates self-centered behavior. While many if not most cultures celebrate materialism and material success, criticism of greed and of "the rich" is almost universal.
I agree with you there, but I think there's an irony in it. That's because I think it raises the question of what we mean by "celebrate".
You see, a culture might celebrate selflessness - however, an individual person might be motivated to be celebrated as an exemplar in that culture. Would such a motivation itself be self-centred?
I think many of us would say yes.
However, if that means that a self-centred motivation to be celebrated as an exemplar is not permissible, then you defeat all forms of exemplar celebration. The result of that is that the distinction between what is and isn't celebrated is no longer relevant. The culture might not celebrate selfishness - but it doesn't celebrate selflessness either. And, given that there are reasons for being selfish apart from being celebrated for it, then selfishness becomes the norm again.
I don't know of any religious, philosophical or poetic tradition that has satisfactorily grappled with that paradox. The sayings of the Desert Fathers throw a spotlight on it, but they don't really resolve it.
Having said all that, though, I think the only things powerful empires really care about is that you pay your taxes, and that you fight on their side. Anything that you can do that helps to swell their coffers, or which encourages more people to fight on their side, will be hailed as a moral example - and may even be called "selfless". But anything that you or I might consider "selfless" but which doesn't serve the interests of the ruling empire, simply won't be preserved by that empire.
Personally, I think that a lot more altruistic behaviour goes on than is given credit in the media. But it's precisely because credit for altruism is so rare that Christianity is able to tell us that we're all "sinful" and "fallen", in my opinion.
Having said that, I don't think that individual altruistic actions will ever solve the problem of global poverty, any more than it will ever solve the problem of global mortality. So I don't see how the idea of universal moral failing really helps to make society better - but I'm not suggesting I've got any better alternatives, though.
It's one thing to ask what you would have people believe in if you ruled enough of the world to be able to set up an imperial religion of your own - but it's quite another to ask why you think it would make any difference.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How is directly disobeying a command of God not (in a Hebrew bible) supposed to be viewed by the reader as evil?
The idea that disobeying a command of God is evil presupposes a lot of things about the nature of the things God says, that the text at this point doesn't actually say.
For example - some have argued that part of the point of the creation story is that when God speaks, things happen. The speech of God is therefore binding, in a way that makes a nonsense of the idea that it's possible for it to be "disobeyed".
However, that's not the case here - because in Genesis 2:17, the LORD God is seen to be offering a choice; either you avoid the tree, or you die. So, it's not that God is being disobeyed, rather, it's that a choice has been made.
But there's nothing in the text at this point that implies that there's no comparative "evil" of one of those choices over the other; the idea that choosing to die is somehow more evil than choosing to eat the fruit only comes about as a result of reading other theology back into Genesis, but it's not actually there in the text itself.
Indeed, there are many instances in Christian narrative where the protagonist's choice to die is traditionally considered less evil than some other option. For example, Jesus's decision not to oppose his arrest and crucifixion falls into this category.
To say that to choose to die is virtuous when Jesus did it, but is sinful when Adam and Eve did it, is inconsistent - unless you're applying some other qualifying criteria to the question of how you distinguish good and evil. I'm not denying the existence of those other qualifying criteria; but my point is, if they're anywhere in the Bible at all, they're elsewhere. They're not actually in the first few chapters of Genesis.
There's a limit to the extent to which it can be taken literally - because, in Genesis 2:17, the LORD God didn't only say that if they eat from the tree, they die; he specifically said that if they eat from the tree, they will die on that day.
But clearly they didn't die on that day - because the story has that Adam and Eve went on to have Cain and Abel. And Seth. And after having Seth, Adam lived another 800 years. I suppose you could say that it's still one day - but 800 years is a very long day by some reckoning. Either that, or God went back on his prior word; that is, God said that a thing was going to happen, that then didn't happen.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The idea that disobeying a command of God is evil presupposes a lot of things about the nature of the things God says, that the text at this point doesn't actually say.
Are you saying that any Israelite picking up Genesis (at any time in their history) would have been in any doubt about this?
I suppose that if you are the kind of fundamentalist YEC who thinks that Genesis 1-3 was recorded by Moses as a eye-witness account of what happened then just maybe you might have a point. (Even then I think it would be weak.)
But if you think Genesis has any kind of literary history then your point fails. I cannot believe that any follower of YHWH could pick up their sacred text and read a direct disobedience of YHWH as anything but evil.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The idea that disobeying a command of God is evil presupposes a lot of things about the nature of the things God says, that the text at this point doesn't actually say.
Are you saying that any Israelite picking up Genesis (at any time in their history) would have been in any doubt about this?
You've missed a lot of the point - including the bit about the question of whether or not the choice to eat the fruit can be considered a form of disobedience at all.
I'm not seeing it as God saying that Adam mustn't eat from the tree. Rather, I'm seeing it as God saying that Adam can if he wants; it's just that he will die if he does. Whether Adam wants to die or not is up to him - but there's no suggestion that any one of the choices that Adam could have taken is in any way more "evil" than any other.
Christians don't believe that Jesus's decision to submit to arrest and crucifixion was evil. So what makes the choice that Adam faced any different to the choice that Jesus faced?
[ 25. June 2011, 13:12: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
This dissection of the significance of every word of Christianity's creation myth doesn't seem terribly relevant to me.
Zach
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
This dissection of the significance of every word of Christianity's creation myth doesn't seem terribly relevant to me.
The reason it's relevant is because Christians often say that the concept of "sin" is defined in terms of "original sin", which, in turn, they say they get from Genesis.
However, if we can show that Genesis doesn't actually say what Christians say it says, then it shows that there's a good chance that there have been other formative influences on the idea, which Christians aren't crediting.
Not that that in itself makes the theology of original sin "wrong" of course. Even if Genesis doesn't support original sin, that doesn't mean that the doctrine doesn't have other merits besides its supposed support in Genesis. However, it does mean that if you want to argue those merits, you've got to do more than simply say "but Genesis says so!".
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
The reason it's relevant is because Christians often say that the concept of "sin" is defined in terms of "original sin", which, in turn, they say they get from Genesis.
However, if we can show that Genesis doesn't actually say what Christians say it says, then it shows that there's a good chance that there have been other formative influences on the idea, which Christians aren't crediting.
Not that that in itself makes the theology of original sin "wrong" of course. Even if Genesis doesn't support original sin, that doesn't mean that the doctrine doesn't have other merits besides its supposed support in Genesis. However, it does mean that if you want to argue those merits, you've got to do more than simply say "but Genesis says so!".
Has anyone said "But Genesis said so!"? I don't think any of the Christians here are saying one ought to take Genesis literally. Therefore, expecting a universally agreed upon theme and significance of the myth is silly, not to mention completely irrelevent for an understanding of original sin.
Zach
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I'm not seeing it as God saying that Adam mustn't eat from the tree. Rather, I'm seeing it as God saying that Adam can if he wants; it's just that he will die if he does.
In which case you are totally ignoring what the text says:
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..."
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I'm not seeing it as God saying that Adam mustn't eat from the tree. Rather, I'm seeing it as God saying that Adam can if he wants; it's just that he will die if he does.
In which case you are totally ignoring what the text says:
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..."
... yes? .... and the next bit?
"... for when you eat of it you will surely die."
The word "for" introduces a qualifier to the previous clause.
If God was really saying that Adam can't eat from the tree, then the question of what would happen to Adam if he does eat from the tree is irrelevant.
But hey, don't proof-text a whole sentence, when half a sentence makes your point so much better.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But, Christianity aside, I don't know of any culture or religion that celebrates self-centered behavior. While many if not most cultures celebrate materialism and material success, criticism of greed and of "the rich" is almost universal.
I agree with you there, but I think there's an irony in it. That's because I think it raises the question of what we mean by "celebrate".
You see, a culture might celebrate selflessness - however, an individual person might be motivated to be celebrated as an exemplar in that culture. Would such a motivation itself be self-centred?...
I don't know of any religious, philosophical or poetic tradition that has satisfactorily grappled with that paradox.
I think that you just grappled with it successfully right there. You immediately identified it as a problem. The simple answer is that if you behave altruistically for self-centered reasons, such as to benefit from being altruistic, then it isn't really altruistic. This means that we need to avoid reflecting on our own state of blessedness just because we selflessly refrained from using the f-word.
I have always marvelled at how sensitively and accurately Hollywood movies grasp this dilemma and search for sincerity in cinematic protagonists. Heroes and heroines need especially to be sincere. They can behave badly, but if they are insincere they lose all credibility.
Movie audiences unerringly detect these kinds of false notes. Audiences love sincere characters and hate characters who seem to take any kind of credit for altruism. People also love loveable rogues if they detect a sincere heart beneath their seemingly self-absorbed or self-centered exterior.
So I don't think that it is a dilemma. Altruism must be altruistic. At the same time people understand that it comes in degrees. That is why happiness comes in degrees, and is not a matter of the black-and-white judgment of an all-or-nothing God. Instead it is organic - woven by God into the fabric of existence.
[ 25. June 2011, 15:17: Message edited by: Freddy ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Movie audiences unerringly detect these kinds of false notes. Audiences love sincere characters and hate characters who seem to take any kind of credit for altruism. People also love loveable rogues if they detect a sincere heart beneath their seemingly self-absorbed or self-centered exterior.
Of course, I agree with you. But I think it's worth pointing out that this is also a reason why some of the things that Jesus says about himself in John's Gospel may count as a black mark against him, in some people's minds.
"Before he was, I am". Really? That sounds a lot like taking credit for your miracles, in some people's imagination. But then, here's another theory: perhaps it's deliberate. After all, I'm sure there's another Gospel that has Jesus saying something about having come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.
You could say the same thing about any legendary hero or saint, of course, historical or fictional. But I think there's a limit to how far you can push it. For example, if someone has just won an athletics contest, but then refuses to take the trophy award, saying "no no no, really, I don't deserve it" - then it can be seen as taking the piss out of the competitors who didn't do as well as the winner.
To make light of your own efforts is to trivialise the efforts of anyone who thinks they've done anything similar to you, but who haven't been given the spotlight for it. For that reason, there are times when you have to accept the accolades that get pinned on you with a little bit of grace.
And it could be argued that this is all that Jesus was doing when he called himself "I am". Then again, maybe not. I don't think it's possible to prescribe hard-and-fast rules about this sort of thing.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To make light of your own efforts is to trivialise the efforts of anyone who thinks they've done anything similar to you, but who haven't been given the spotlight for it. For that reason, there are times when you have to accept the accolades that get pinned on you with a little bit of grace.
So right. It's really pretty amazing how clearly we all know these rules. When a celebrity or movie character does it even slightly wrong everyone knows - and it is pointed out mercilessly in the gossip sites (where people have no claim to any sort of high road!).
You have to be humble, but you also have to accept honors with joy. I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
... I don't think it's possible to prescribe hard-and-fast rules about this sort of thing.
That's right.
The point is that these things are tough to make rules about, but they are extremely important to people's sense of satisfaction and sense of well-being in life. It's hard to be truly content if you are insincere or greedy. These things interfere with the ability to be happy and at peace.
So it is not that God judges or punishes. It's that we make choices, and continually experience the results that are inherent in the intentions and actions themselves.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Freddy
The recent exchanges between you and JP are both interesting and illuminating. But I'm not comfortable with your views.
I think the reason is that ISTM, at least in Western world, we seem to have for the first time together both a narcissistic and iconoclastic culture. We both idolise the self-indulgent and knock them down. Fame is desired, admired and envied, all at the same time. The goal is to be successful.
I'm pretty sure these mixed signals abound and I don't think they underpin anymore a general cultural aversion to selfishness.
Of course, I'm getting old ...
But when Dylan wrote "your sons and your daughters aren't at your command", the backdrop was not just the sexual revolution; it was as much, if not more, Civil Rights and anti-war idealism.
Whereas we now have American Idol and the X Factor ..
Sure, I generalise. But I reckon there's been a shift.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, I generalise. But I reckon there's been a shift.
I wouldn't argue with that. I'm not trying to say that things are good or that the culture is headed in a good direction. I was just saying that we intuitively know how to deal with the apparent conundrum of self-centered altruism.
My points are:
- 1. Good and evil are their own reward in the long run.
- 2. God loves everyone and punishes no one.
- 3. Our concepts of sin, salvation, hell and heaven are tragically skewed. These outmoded concepts rely on a literalistic interpretation of biblical images that have no chance of making sense or leading us to love God.
The problem is that people are confused by the understanding of God as a powerful man in the sky who is pleased by some things and angered by others according to some arbitrary system.
It would be much better to understand God as consistently loving. He created humans to be an object of His love and to make them happy, and so He provides means for them to find happiness. It's just that since autonomy is a prime requisite for happiness He also made it possible for people to follow their own ideas about what makes for happiness. If this means that they do things that are less inherently joyful this doesn't make Him angry or move Him to punish anyone. But He does warn us against these choices.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the reason is that ISTM, at least in Western world, we seem to have for the first time together both a narcissistic and iconoclastic culture. We both idolise the self-indulgent and knock them down. Fame is desired, admired and envied, all at the same time.
I agree - it's all over the celebrity gossip columns.
However, I don't think this quite constitutes evidence that modern culture is okay with selfishness. If the gossip columnists who think that a particular celebrity whose love life has been a bit public lately has behaved like a jerk, then they will say so. Indeed - it's what they do.
For example, there seems to have been no end of comment on Lindsay Lohan and the rehabilitation orders she's faced lately, and whether or not she's getting special treatment (either favourable or unfavourable) because she's a sleb.
Then there are the people who get into the spotlight off the back of a reality TV show. Then a bit of gossip about them goes round the press. This then causes a big family bust-up - which, in turn, generates more gossip. Thanks to reality TV, I think it's fairly clear to most people now that fame for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing.
Mind you, you could argue that if that was really true, then American Idol and X Factor would find it a lot harder to get contestants than they might have done in the past.
However, I'm not convinced that this is an entirely new thing. It looks to me as though there may have been a similar dynamic of status-shifts of popular Roman gladiator arena contestants. The arena glorified some people, but humiliated others - besides being a bit deadly from time to time as well.
Then again, we can't be sure of that. It's hard to see how ancient wisdom literature is directly relevant to the rapid yo-yoing between glorification and humiliation that people in the public eye have to face nowadays. The wisdom literature tries to offer sensible guidelines and advice - but, sometimes, the ups and downs of people's reputations and fortunes just seems to be uncontrollable.
A particular problem is that I think sometimes people are reluctant to take credit for something good they've done - or even do something good that might earn credit in the first place - because they fear that the public exposure they may get over the matter may cause their reputation to be trashed over some other matter at a later date. But perhaps it's only a minor problem, I don't know.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Our concepts of sin, salvation, hell and heaven are tragically skewed. These outmoded concepts rely on a literalistic interpretation of biblical images that have no chance of making sense or leading us to love God.
Hmm. I'm not sure that the concepts rely on a literalistic interpretation of biblical images.
I would rather say they don't rely on the Bible at all. However, literalistic interpretation - not just of the Bible, I might add, but also potentially of Dante - has the effect of making our understanding of those concepts tragically skewed.
This doesn't just come about as a result of fundamentalists deliberately chasing narrowly literal interpretations; it can also come about as a result of a half-understood piece of church liturgy, or a half-understood line of a Shakespeare play you did in school, which then becomes culturally normative, and is no longer questioned.
Whilst on the one hand I don't deny that Dante's Inferno is a great piece of literature, on the other hand, I don't think anyone can deny that shallow interpretations of it, that suffice for high school literature homework, has probably had a large effect on perpetuating inappropriate views of hell.
I'm not suggesting that cutting back on Dante in the school curriculum would solve that problem, though - because pop-culture still plays a part, regardless of what does and doesn't get taught at school.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
For example, there seems to have been no end of comment on Lindsay Lohan and the rehabilitation orders she's faced lately, and whether or not she's getting special treatment (either favourable or unfavourable) because she's a sleb.
I have a special place in my heart for Lindsay Lohan. I saw "The Parent Trap" and base all my opinions about her, and her twin, on that. I can't imagine why they would send her to a rehab.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
You've missed a lot of the point - including the bit about the question of whether or not the choice to eat the fruit can be considered a form of disobedience at all.
No, I didn't miss your point, I just disagreed with it.
Geneis is part of the Torah. I know that you must find this frustrating but it is not and never has been part of Greek mythology. Throughout the Torah it is always assumed that when God speaks humans must obey.
The idea that men can test the gods in this way may be common in Greek mythology but it is not known in Hebrew Torah.
I repeat - we have no evidence that any Israelite, at any period of history, would read Genesis 1-3 and fail to conclude that the man and the woman disobeyed a direct command of God, and that this is a bad / evil thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Christians don't believe that Jesus's decision to submit to arrest and crucifixion was evil. So what makes the choice that Adam faced any different to the choice that Jesus faced?
The answer is so obvious that I fear I must have misunderstood you - Jesus did not disobey a direct command of God.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
... yes? .... and the next bit?
"... for when you eat of it you will surely die."
The word "for" introduces a qualifier to the previous clause.
If God was really saying that Adam can't eat from the tree, then the question of what would happen to Adam if he does eat from the tree is irrelevant.
But hey, don't proof-text a whole sentence, when half a sentence makes your point so much better.
Same with this bit - you make no sense here.
If a parent warns his/her child that they will get a punishment if they disobey are you really suggesting that the parent is encouraging them to make genuine choice? Surely what they mean is - "You mustn't do that!"
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Your interpretation is one I have never heard before so it's interesting. But I don't think it stands up to the text.
You say Adam and Eve experience evil. This is not apparent from the text. Unless evil is becoming wise.
How is directly disobeying a command of God not (in a Hebrew bible) supposed to be viewed by the reader as evil?
So disobeying God is evil because it leads to wisdom?
Is wisdom not celebrated in the Hebrew bible? Is it not present with God at the beginning of creation?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If a parent warns his/her child that they will get a punishment if they disobey are you really suggesting that the parent is encouraging them to make genuine choice? Surely what they mean is - "You mustn't do that!"
So God doesn't give us a genuine choice?
What happened to free will?
Is God a benevolent dictator?
[ 26. June 2011, 06:20: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the reason is that ISTM, at least in Western world, we seem to have for the first time together both a narcissistic and iconoclastic culture. We both idolise the self-indulgent and knock them down. Fame is desired, admired and envied, all at the same time.
I agree - it's all over the celebrity gossip columns.
However, I don't think this quite constitutes evidence that modern culture is okay with selfishness. If the gossip columnists who think that a particular celebrity whose love life has been a bit public lately has behaved like a jerk, then they will say so. Indeed - it's what they do.
OK. Different motivations at work here. Gossip columnists are in the competitive business of selling news. Whatever their personal morality may be, their interest in a "jerk" story is that it sells. What sells it?
Let me claim that it is evidence in support of my concerns. Gossip columnists are playing on tendencies to prurience plus that most "enjoyable" temptation to indulge in moral self-righteousness at no cost to oneself. A combination of stone-throwing and gossip is pretty toxic to a selfless instinct. The hypocrisy seems pretty evident. Our fostered and expressed indignation, when it has the underlying value of "disgraceful, how could he or she do that?" simply fuels that delusion that somehow we don't fall into temptation.
Jesus' question when under question was as follows.
'When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."'
Recognising our propensity to lapse into judgmentalism and join in the stone-throwing is an important dimension of selflessness. We're hardly that switched on to the interests of others if we forget that.
The reluctance to get in the public eye to which you refer later suggests that folks do see the risk of exposure of the skeletons in their cupboard even if initially they get noticed for a very good reason. That may very well be enlightened self-interest, but it doesn't encourage me to believe in the prevailing power of social selflessness! Rather the reverse.
The interesting recent thread about the rapist who did really good social service during a natural disaster, got an award and then got it taken away, suggests that those who took the award away were going with a kind of self-righteous grain in social instincts, rather than a celebration of selflessness whoever demonstrated it.
I guess there are pointers in both directions, JP, and I recognise that you and Freddy have made good points. My concern remains that the trend is not good.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
]So disobeying God is evil because it leads to wisdom?
Is wisdom not celebrated in the Hebrew bible? Is it not present with God at the beginning of creation?
Yes wisdom is celebrated - and it beginnings with fearing YHWH instead of thinking you know better than him.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
God doesn't give us a genuine choice?
What happened to free will?
Is God a benevolent dictator?
Yes the choice is genuine, just as the choice of your children is. But the command means, "You mustn't!"
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
]So disobeying God is evil because it leads to wisdom?
Is wisdom not celebrated in the Hebrew bible? Is it not present with God at the beginning of creation?
Yes wisdom is celebrated - and it beginnings with fearing YHWH instead of thinking you know better than him.
There is no fear of God in the Genesis passages. That comes later in Proverbs.
And there is no notion of knowing better than God at that point. Just a reasonable assertion that:
1) the tree was good for food,
2) and that it was a delight to the eyes,
3) and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no fear of God in the Genesis passages.
Who was the man afraid of Genesis 3 v 10?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no fear of God in the Genesis passages.
Who was the man afraid of Genesis 3 v 10?
But that's after eating the apple. Before that there was no fear.
So that might confirm Adam and Eve became wise (according to Proverbs - if the fear of the lord is indeed the beginning of wisdom).
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If a parent warns his/her child that they will get a punishment if they disobey are you really suggesting that the parent is encouraging them to make genuine choice? Surely what they mean is - "You mustn't do that!"
So God doesn't give us a genuine choice?
What happened to free will?
Is God a benevolent dictator?
Very good point. There's a limit to how far the parent metaphor really works. Parents really don't want their children to come to harm, if they can possibly help it. And parents recognise that there's a limit to the extent to which offering rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience, can bring that about.
It's no good telling a two-year-old that they will be grounded and barred from Facebook for a month if they crawl across the motorway, without making at least some effort to look for bridges or subways first. No, the parent is not going to leave the matter up to the child's choice at all if they can possibly help it. The parent is unlikely even to allow the child to kill himself voluntarily.
It makes no sense to say that the child has done something "good" or "evil" unless that child has been given a choice. Likewise, it makes no sense to say that Adam has done something "good" or "evil" unless we acknowledge that God gave Adam a choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Geneis is part of the Torah. I know that you must find this frustrating but it is not and never has been part of Greek mythology. Throughout the Torah it is always assumed that when God speaks humans must obey.
Define "must". Are you denying that humans have a choice?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I repeat - we have no evidence that any Israelite, at any period of history, would read Genesis 1-3 and fail to conclude that the man and the woman disobeyed a direct command of God, and that this is a bad / evil thing to do.
We also don't have any evidence that Genesis actually existed in its complete form prior to the rise of the Persian empire. You can't use lack of evidence of historical support for one view as evidence that the opposite view must therefore be right.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The answer is so obvious that I fear I must have misunderstood you - Jesus did not disobey a direct command of God.
Yes - but did he obey any direct commands of God? Put it this way - the tetragrammaton does appear in Genesis, but it doesn't appear in any of the Gospels.
My point is simply this; there are similarities between the story of Adam eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and the story of Odin drinking from the fountain of Mimir. But there are also contrasts. The question of which of those stories came first, and whether or not one of them may have influenced the other, and whether or not they may have derived from a common source, is utterly irrelevant and beside the point.
The similarities are that both the Genesis tree of knowledge, and the fountain of Mimir, are sources of wisdom. Both Adam and Odin are warned that if they partake of it, they will die. And in both stories, the protagonists are initially hesitant, but then they partake of it anyway. In both stories, the protagonists subsequently died - albeit not that quickly in the Genesis version.
But the differences are that in Christian tradition, Adam is deemed to have sinned, and given in to temptation, and that death is thus deserved. But in the Norse tradition, it's the other way round; Odin rises from the dead (a bit like Jesus), and he shares the wisdom he gained from the fountain for the benefit of all mankind. For that reason, the fact that Odin was prepared to die for something that ultimately benefitted all mankind, is considered to be a high honour - not unlike how Christians see Jesus's decision to accept his "cup of suffering".
The point this illustrates is that being warned that an action you might take, might result in your death, does not necessarily mean that the action is to be considered disobedient.
So the question we need to ask, then, is this: to what extent does Genesis really support the traditional Christian understanding of the story - namely, that Adam had sinned, God punished Adam, and that this was the "original sin" - and how much of this understanding developed later on? How much of "original sin" is actually in Genesis, and how much of it is the meta-narrative that has been imposed on it by subsequent Christian theology?
It's unrealistic to expect that any formal dogma of any religion can be supported in all its glory and all its minutiae, just by proof-texts of one or two sentences of the related ancient literature. However, that does not automatically make those dogmas wrong. It just means that if we really want to know where those dogmas came from, then we have to be honest about their historical development, including the doubts we might have that the dogmas are really as old as we might like to think.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's after eating the apple. Before that there was no fear.
You've side-stepped the issue here. Why would the man be afraid of God if it was not wrong to eat the fruit?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Very good point. There's a limit to how far the parent metaphor really works. Parents really don't want their children to come to harm, if they can possibly help it. And parents recognise that there's a limit to the extent to which offering rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience, can bring that about.
It's no good telling a two-year-old that they will be grounded and barred from Facebook for a month if they crawl across the motorway, without making at least some effort to look for bridges or subways first. No, the parent is not going to leave the matter up to the child's choice at all if they can possibly help it. The parent is unlikely even to allow the child to kill himself voluntarily.
It makes no sense to say that the child has done something "good" or "evil" unless that child has been given a choice. Likewise, it makes no sense to say that Adam has done something "good" or "evil" unless we acknowledge that God gave Adam a choice.
Adam and Eve were not children in the story. I don't think your analogy holds up here.
Adult children don't have plastic protectors in electricity power points or catches on the sharp knives drawer. If they make choices to harm themselves they are free choices but they have been warned.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Define "must". Are you denying that humans have a choice?
I've already answered that to Boogie.
Yes humans have a choice. Must is an imperative. I'm using it the way it is used in the English language. The subject of the verb demands obedience - the object still has a choice, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
We also don't have any evidence that Genesis actually existed in its complete form prior to the rise of the Persian empire. You can't use lack of evidence of historical support for one view as evidence that the opposite view must therefore be right.
You do realise that you are supporting my assertion that you cannot read Genesis 1-3 as an isolated text don't you?
What I'm saying is that all the available evidence suggests that we interpret Genesis as part of a tradition in which disobeying a command of God is a very bad thing to do. And you are confirming that by saying that none of the evidence supports your view.
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The question of which of those stories came first, and whether or not one of them may have influenced the other, and whether or not they may have derived from a common source, is utterly irrelevant and beside the point.
Beside the point?
Hardly. If they have no common source and similarities are purely coincidental then you have absolutely no grounds for using one to understand the other.
Honestly, this is straight from the Dan Brown school of theology. How can you turn your back on all the texts that are universally agreed to be relevant to our discussion in favour of another text where no one agrees it has any necessary connection?
The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that when author and readers of Genesis 3 came to the text they had any of these Viking myths or ideas in their heads.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's after eating the apple. Before that there was no fear.
You've side-stepped the issue here. Why would the man be afraid of God if it was not wrong to eat the fruit?
I think you've side stepped the issue.
Why was eating the fruit wrong if it led to wisdom?
Because God told them not to is not an answer.
Compared to the rest of the bible, God seems to be in the wrong in this passage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think you've side stepped the issue.
As an attempt at not answering the question, this was not a very good one.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why was eating the fruit wrong if it led to wisdom?
Because that is a biblical definition of sin - being wise in your own eyes. Here's a good example of the OT view of wisdom,
quote:
"Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil."
Proverbs 3: 7
You're catching Jessie's ability to see Greeks everywhere. Hebrew wisdom is not some abstracted ideal that stands apart from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because God told them not to is not an answer.
Of course it is an answer. It just doesn't satisfy you, you mean.
What do you think the 10 commandments are? God's suggestions on how to acquire wisdom?
[PS We've been through all this before with Myrrh, why don't you did out some of the old threads?]
[ 27. June 2011, 02:44: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I know disobeying God is a sin Johnny. Just like I know wisdom is Godly.
You're not acknowledging the discrepancy in the text.
That's all I'm trying to point out.
There is a contradiction there.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[PS We've been through all this before with Myrrh, why don't you did out some of the old threads?]
Because I'd have to read all the same silly interpretations that Paul and Augustine have read back into a Hebrew text?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're not acknowledging the discrepancy in the text.
That's all I'm trying to point out.
There is a contradiction there.
There is no discrepancy or contradiction in the text to do with wisdom.
If you want to discuss the interesting questions - e.g. exactly what is meant here by 'wisdom' etc. then fine. There are many intriguing questions.
But, according to the text, there are no contradictions. You have to provide the contradiction from your assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Because I'd have to read all the same silly interpretations that Paul and Augustine have read back into a Hebrew text?
Mmmh. Interesting. Do you like Bosnians?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[PS We've been through all this before with Myrrh, why don't you did out some of the old threads?]
No-o-o-o-h!! Arrrrgh!! Have pity, please ..
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've side-stepped the issue here. Why would the man be afraid of God if it was not wrong to eat the fruit?
Why would the man be afraid of God full stop?
If their relationship (pre-fruit) was a good one, surely Adam could trust God to forgive him?
My son has done much worse and been able to come to me, confess and be forgiven.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why would the man be afraid of God full stop?
You tell me.
The point is that it is in the text.
God commanded the man not to eat.
The man disobeyed.
The man is now afraid of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If their relationship (pre-fruit) was a good one, surely Adam could trust God to forgive him?
That may or may not be true but what textual reasons do you have for seeing it in Genesis 1-3?
I realise this is not a keryg thread but either we discuss this passage or we don't. (I'm happy either way). And if we discuss this passage then we discuss this passage and not 'how the passage would have looked if I had written it.'
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're not acknowledging the discrepancy in the text.
That's all I'm trying to point out.
There is a contradiction there.
There is no discrepancy or contradiction in the text to do with wisdom.
Sure there is.
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to become wise like him and the other Gods? (i.e. why forbid the fruit?)
Did he want them to remain foolish?
If so, why is wisdom so highly regarded elsewhere?
Doesn't put God in a good light.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why would the man be afraid of God full stop?
You tell me.
The point is that it is in the text.
God commanded the man not to eat.
The man disobeyed.
The man is now afraid of God.
The man is not afraid because he disobeyed.
He is afraid because he is naked.
quote:
But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’
He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’
That's an interesting question too....(what naked means)
[ 27. June 2011, 06:46: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You're not acknowledging the discrepancy in the text.
That's all I'm trying to point out.
There is a contradiction there.
There is no discrepancy or contradiction in the text to do with wisdom.
Sure there is.
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to become wise like him and the other Gods? (i.e. why forbid the fruit?)
Did he want them to remain foolish?
If so, why is wisdom so highly regarded elsewhere?
Doesn't put God in a good light.
Because it's not wisdom that lies at the heart of the prohibition - it's the knowledge (the intim ate experience) of good and evil. The sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience to God's instruction, not the gaining of this experience.
The opposite of wisdom in this context is not foolishness, but innocence.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The man is not afraid because he disobeyed.
He is afraid because he is naked.
quote:
But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’
He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’
That's an interesting question too....(what naked means)
He was afraid because he KNEW he was naked - there was a knowledge of good and evil that Adam could not process, could not cope with intellectually, emotionally and spoiritually.
A mature Adam would have known that nakedness was not shameful; neither would he have hid from God out of fear. This is the point - Adam and Eve found the knowledge between good and evil without the capacity to understand it.
The nakedness, according to the text, is having no clothes on pure and simple. There is no need to make it mean anything deeper. The whole point is that they were embarrassed to see weach other's nude bodies and the unregulated knowledge of good and evil made them feel shame.
Now there's a thought!
Maybe the cause of their shame and fearm etc, was not that they didn't know the
difference between good and evil (which is not what the text says; but that by knowing good and evil, they were unable to distinguish between the two.
Is that not the human condition, that good and evil are confused? That what is good for some is evil to others and that we are incapable of fulfilling our good desires but so often fall into that which is evil?
Anmd that is why we have to hide ourselves from God.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sure there is.
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to become wise like him and the other Gods? (i.e. why forbid the fruit?)
Did he want them to remain foolish?
If so, why is wisdom so highly regarded elsewhere?
Doesn't put God in a good light.
You change the goalposts so frequently you make me dizzy.
It is possible that it puts God in a bad light - that is a question of interpretation - but it is not a contradiction or a discrepancy within the text.
And to answer your question - what Mudfrog said.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The man is not afraid because he disobeyed.
He is afraid because he is naked.
This is getting tedious. The text is explicit about the fact that the man and woman are hiding from God (see v 8). His nakedness may be the presenting issue (and worth discussing) but for some reason his nakedness makes him fear God, so that he hides. Even in the verse you quoted the man says that his fear was brought on by hearing the presence of God in the garden.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
Did your parents, knowing and understanding a lot more about life, allow you just to do what you wanted?
No, but they didn't define absolutely what "adulthood" meant and refuse to allow me any freedom unless I conformed to said definition either.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because it's not wisdom that lies at the heart of the prohibition - it's the knowledge (the intim ate experience) of good and evil.
But the experience of good and evil is the experience of God and the gods.
Even if you think the serpent was wrong, you would have to say that God and the gods were not wiser than Adam and Eve.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You change the goalposts so frequently you make me dizzy.
I'm sorry if it seems that way but it's certainly not deliberate.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is possible that it puts God in a bad light - that is a question of interpretation - but it is not a contradiction or a discrepancy within the text.
From memory, this argument came up because of the idea of theosis.
My original assertion was that God did not want us to become like gods in Genesis, so why would she want us to now?
I think you claimed it was because Adam and Eve were "grasping" at wisdom (whatever that means - and is it supported by the text?).
I just pointed out grasping at wisdom was very present in the Hebrew tradition (We spoke of Proverbs) so that boat doesn't float.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
Did your parents, knowing and understanding a lot more about life, allow you just to do what you wanted?
No, but they didn't define absolutely what "adulthood" meant and refuse to allow me any freedom unless I conformed to said definition either.
Yes. Exactly.
Which is why many interpret this passage as a step forward in human development.
If you listen to your parents all the time, you don't become yourself. You just become one or the other of them.
If that's all God desires then that's rather weird isn't it? God just wants a bunch of little God clones?
No. Certainly not according to Genesis. God did not want us to become God.
No free will.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Just picked up the first commentary on my shelf:
"The tree of life gives eternal life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wisdom. the latter was forbidden for human consumption because the wisdom acquired through eating it leads to indepoendence from God, whereas true wisdom begins with 'the fear of the LORD'.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Another interpretation that does not do justice to the text.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another interpretation that does not do justice to the text.
Sorry, what Phd in theology and biblical studies do you have?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just picked up the first commentary on my shelf:
"The tree of life gives eternal life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wisdom. the latter was forbidden for human consumption because the wisdom acquired through eating it leads to indepoendence from God, whereas true wisdom begins with 'the fear of the LORD'.
Well I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just picked up the first commentary on my shelf:
"The tree of life gives eternal life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wisdom. the latter was forbidden for human consumption because the wisdom acquired through eating it leads to indepoendence from God, whereas true wisdom begins with 'the fear of the LORD'.
Well I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Fear, in the Biblical sense, has nothing to do with being afraif; it's an attitude of awe and respect, of total worship asnd submission.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just picked up the first commentary on my shelf:
"The tree of life gives eternal life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wisdom. the latter was forbidden for human consumption because the wisdom acquired through eating it leads to indepoendence from God, whereas true wisdom begins with 'the fear of the LORD'.
Well I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Fear, in the Biblical sense, has nothing to do with being afraif; it's an attitude of awe and respect, of total worship asnd submission.
Respect cannot be demanded it is earned. As for worship and awe I see too many problems in the way the bible and current Christian thought describes god for that. Now my interpretation of these things may be wrong and I'm happy to debate that. But so far I've not been convinced. Submission? Not really my thing but I'm always willing to experiment.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From memory, this argument came up because of the idea of theosis.
My original assertion was that God did not want us to become like gods in Genesis, so why would she want us to now?
I think you claimed it was because Adam and Eve were "grasping" at wisdom (whatever that means - and is it supported by the text?).
I just pointed out grasping at wisdom was very present in the Hebrew tradition (We spoke of Proverbs) so that boat doesn't float.
I think you said that you have studied some theology.
If so this is simple OT 101.
Any secular university theology department will teach you about the central role that covenant plays to ANE culture.
The OT (the Pentateuch especially) portrays the covenantal relationship between the Suzerain (YHWH) and his subjects (the Israelites). Any notion of wisdom is always seen in the context of the oath of obedience made to the Suzerain.
We may not like the image of God portrayed - pace George Spigot - but none of this stuff is controversial or disputed.
I used the term 'grasp' to contrast Adam with Jesus. Who, according to Philippians 2, did not see equality with God as something to be grasped. Theosis is about how the gospel makes us sons of God and therefore become like God. Sin, as exampled in the story in Genesis 3, is not to receive that as a gift but to try to seize it by force. There is only one God.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Perhaps parental analogies have lead us down a dead-end.
If we are looking at the text of Genesis 1-3 then rather than parent-child, a closer analogy would be that of sculptor and clay. This is more like the relationship you have to a barbie doll (or Ken if you prefer) than to any human-human relationship.
I'm not saying that I understand it fully but if there is a God (and yes, that is a big if) then he is a God.
If all you do is look around at other people I don't think it is surprising that you won't find anybody worth worshipping.
Of course the only exception I'd say to that rule is Jesus. Well, I would, wouldn't I? And interestingly Jesus also said a lot about how the only way we could avoid death was by obeying his word (e.g. John 5). And similarly people did not die straight away when they disobeyed his commands either.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I used the term 'grasp' to contrast Adam with Jesus. Who, according to Philippians 2, did not see equality with God as something to be grasped. Theosis is about how the gospel makes us sons of God and therefore become like God. Sin, as exampled in the story in Genesis 3, is not to receive that as a gift but to try to seize it by force. There is only one God.
Another Christian interpretation.
The Genesis myth has been appropriated by Christians and changed to suit the Christian framework.
That's fine.
But it's certainly not OT 101. More like NT 101.
I was just trying to stick with an OT one. You know, like most historical-critical scholarship does?
You know, like they teach you at Uni? Or perhaps this is where the trouble lies. My theology degree is from a University, not a bible college.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Theosis is about how the gospel makes us sons of God and therefore become like God.
Theosis, according to many patristic writers (- the article IngoB linked to), does not mean becoming like God, but becoming god/s.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
we cannot become God by nature,; yet in a certain sense the divinized do "become God" by grace since they participate in the Divine Nature). Saint Basil the Great taught that "the highest of all things desired (is) to become God" by the power of the Holy Spirit 3. According to Saint Gregory Nazianzen, the Risen Christ "still pleads even now as Man for my salvation, for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His Incarnation" 4.
Pure nonsense.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another Christian interpretation.
Of course it is. I was explaining why I used the word grasped, and I happen to be a Christian.
However, you have completely ignored the main part of my post. Ignore the bit about grasping if you want to. My main point was ...
quote:
Originally posted by my good self:
Any secular university theology department will teach you about the central role that covenant plays to ANE culture.
The OT (the Pentateuch especially) portrays the covenantal relationship between the Suzerain (YHWH) and his subjects (the Israelites). Any notion of wisdom is always seen in the context of the oath of obedience made to the Suzerain.
We may not like the image of God portrayed - pace George Spigot - but none of this stuff is controversial or disputed.
(BTW I've studied theology both at a Secular University and at a Bible college.)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another interpretation that does not do justice to the text.
Sorry, what Phd in theology and biblical studies do you have?
Just add an IMO behind that if it makes you uncomfortable.
And no Phd. Just a nearly completed Bachelor of Theology with honours (University level) and multiple awards for academic excellence.
Not that it matters even if I did have a Phd.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another Christian interpretation.
Of course it is. I was explaining why I used the word grasped, and I happen to be a Christian.
Fine. I just don't think grasping for wisdom is a problem in an OT framework.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, you have completely ignored the main part of my post. Ignore the bit about grasping if you want to. My main point was ...
I ignored it because I didn't see how covenant relates to the Genesis passage.
Covenant theology in terms of obedience comes rather a bit later wot? Exodus and all that? Aren't you being anachronistic?
I don't even see how the covenants of Genesis 12,15 and 17 are relevant.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(BTW I've studied theology both at a Secular University and at a Bible college.)
That would explain why you make sense only half the time.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fine. I just don't think grasping for wisdom is a problem in an OT framework.
If you had said that you don't believe that wisdom is a problem in an OT framework then I might have some sympathy. It clearly does not fit your framework.
However, as a factual statement it is simply incorrect.
I could come up with more quotes for you if you are interested, but something tells me that mere hard evidence will not change your mind...
e.g. Ezekiel 28 ... some of the language may sound familiar to you ...
quote:
“‘In the pride of your heart
you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a man and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.
3 Are you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?
4 By your wisdom and understanding
you have gained wealth for yourself
and amassed gold and silver
in your treasuries.
5 By your great skill in trading
you have increased your wealth,
and because of your wealth
your heart has grown proud.
6 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god...
...You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God...
The OT clearly has different categories for wisdom - there is wisdom that comes from God and there is wisdom (like the King of Tyre and Adam before him) that tries to usurp God's rightful place.
Some have even wondered if Ezekiel 28 refers to a myth about Satan.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Covenant theology in terms of obedience comes rather a bit later wot? Exodus and all that? Aren't you being anachronistic?
I don't even see how the covenants of Genesis 12,15 and 17 are relevant.
Anachronistic? When do you date Genesis to? Genesis comes in a book in the Hebrew scriptures; a book of 5 books. It was meant to be read together.
Right from the beginning of the book mankind's relationship with God is bound by covenant(s). Genesis 15 is a classic 'cutting of a covenant'. Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fine. I just don't think grasping for wisdom is a problem in an OT framework.
If you had said that you don't believe that wisdom is a problem in an OT framework then I might have some sympathy. It clearly does not fit your framework.
However, as a factual statement it is simply incorrect.
I could come up with more quotes for you if you are interested, but something tells me that mere hard evidence will not change your mind...
e.g. Ezekiel 28 ... some of the language may sound familiar to you ...
In the proclamation to the King of Tyre grasping at wisdom is not the problem, it is thinking he was God.
In vv 11-17 wisdom is already granted, part of creation. It was the corruption of pride that soured it all:
quote:
You were the signet of perfection,*
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,* turquoise, and emerald;
and worked in gold were your settings
and your engravings.*
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14 With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you;*
you were on the holy mountain of God;
you walked among the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day that you were created,
until iniquity was found in you.
16 In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and the guardian cherub drove you out
from among the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendour.
Eve takes the fruit because it was desired to make one wise.(in my translation).
There is no line in there like "wanted to be God".
Proverbs chastises those that do not seek wisdom!
quote:
Proverbs 2:1-5
The Value of Wisdom
2My child, if you accept my words
and treasure up my commandments within you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom
and inclining your heart to understanding;
3 if you indeed cry out for insight,
and raise your voice for understanding;
4 if you seek it like silver,
and search for it as for hidden treasures—
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
Eve sought.
She found knowledge and fear of the Lord.
But she was punished for it for some reason......
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Covenant theology in terms of obedience comes rather a bit later wot? Exodus and all that? Aren't you being anachronistic?
I don't even see how the covenants of Genesis 12,15 and 17 are relevant.
Anachronistic? When do you date Genesis to? Genesis comes in a book in the Hebrew scriptures; a book of 5 books. It was meant to be read together.
Right from the beginning of the book mankind's relationship with God is bound by covenant(s). Genesis 15 is a classic 'cutting of a covenant'. Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
Sure.
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
If you see the obedience being the big factor, do you think God would have eventually allowed them to eat of the tree and become wise?
Why is he delaying? Hanging out with his dutiful kids before letting them fly the coop?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In the proclamation to the King of Tyre grasping at wisdom is not the problem, it is thinking he was God.
In vv 11-17 wisdom is already granted, part of creation. It was the corruption of pride that soured it all:
We can argue over the interpretation of Ezekiel 28 if you want to but for my argument to hold all I have to demonstrate is that, in the OT, wisdom is not always seen as a good thing per se.
Here is an example of someone whose wisdom led them away from God. So wisdom is to be sought but the concept of possessing wisdom and still rejecting God is present too.
That's all you need as far as Genesis 3 is concerned. You are creating problems because you want to create problems. There are enough difficulties in the original text without you inventing them!
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Eve takes the fruit because it was desired to make one wise.(in my translation).
There is no line in there like "wanted to be God".
Yes there is - how about the preceding verse?
In verse 5 the Serpent tells her to eat the fruit so that 'she will be like God.' And then she eats the fruit. And then God's judgement on the matter, in v 22, repeats this refrain.
Your interpretation only makes sense if you ignore both the immediate context and the canonical context.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Here is an example of someone whose wisdom led them away from God.
Well. Eve wasn't wise so Ezekiel analogy doesn't really hold anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So wisdom is to be sought but the concept of possessing wisdom and still rejecting God is present too.
That's all you need as far as Genesis 3 is concerned.
Do you think Eve was rejecting God? She just wanted to be more like him and wise.....is that rejection? I take it as wanting to follow your role model.
Stupid to disobey maybe, but hey, she wasn't made wise right? You could even argue it wasn't her fault.
Have you also noticed there is no fear that she will get in trouble if she disobeys? Why is that? Perhaps she thinks she couldn't be doing anything wrong if she became wise and more like God?
I really don't think I'm creating problems. I'm just questioning assumptions that have held for over two thousand years.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
How can you talk in Wellhausen DH terms and then switch to 'Exodus and Deuteronomy'? This is what I mean by jumping around.
You don't have to read Genesis 3 through a covenantal lens, no. But you do have to read it in its immediate context and its canonical context.
I'd argue that must involve the concept of covenant and I'd hardly be out on a limb doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
And yet in Ezekiel 28 you are quite happy that a person is described as being wise and yet rebelling against God?
Wisdom is a good thing on its own, but pursuing it can either leads us toward or away from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you see the obedience being the big factor, do you think God would have eventually allowed them to eat of the tree and become wise?
Why is he delaying? Hanging out with his dutiful kids before letting them fly the coop?
Don't know. Those questions are fair enough to ask but I can't see how asking them undermines the traditional view.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Perhaps parental analogies have lead us down a dead-end.
If we are looking at the text of Genesis 1-3 then rather than parent-child, a closer analogy would be that of sculptor and clay. This is more like the relationship you have to a barbie doll (or Ken if you prefer) than to any human-human relationship.
I'm not saying that I understand it fully but if there is a God (and yes, that is a big if) then he is a God.
If all you do is look around at other people I don't think it is surprising that you won't find anybody worth worshipping.
Of course the only exception I'd say to that rule is Jesus. Well, I would, wouldn't I? And interestingly Jesus also said a lot about how the only way we could avoid death was by obeying his word (e.g. John 5). And similarly people did not die straight away when they disobeyed his commands either.
Ok I realise that no metaphor stands up to close scrutiny but the barbi doll example did make me chuckle. Also it highlighted what I guess, though I'm open to correction, is a big devide between Christian and atheist thinking. Not the submission thing. But the submission without question thing. I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped the line.
No the main fault I can see in this example is that Christians may say, "you are talking about a human leader, we are talking about god". But in all honesty I could not submit without question to man or god. I'd have to keep my eye on what they were doing and call bullshit if there orders seemed fishy. (waves flag) Long live democratic process and all that!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped the line.
No the main fault I can see in this example is that Christians may say, "you are talking about a human leader, we are talking about god". But in all honesty I could not submit without question to man or god. I'd have to keep my eye on what they were doing and call bullshit if there orders seemed fishy. (waves flag) Long live democratic process and all that!
Ah, okay. That is slightly different.
I don't think anyone was advocating 'submission without question'. I'm certainly not suggesting that we accept every command from the bible without question.
However, what do we do with our questions? Surely either "I decide when I obey God and when I don't" or "submission without question" are not the only two options?
I've been thinking about this a lot recently with regard to democracy in our culture - ISTM that it is a common misconception to confuse obedience with agreement... i.e. I will submit to the current government only on the things I agree with.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, what do we do with our questions? Surely either "I decide when I obey God and when I don't" or "submission without question" are not the only two options?
Actually, they are. It's just that the first option covers an awful lot of ground!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about doing what you can to avoid hell. Nothing more. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about having a relationship with God or trying to be more like Him, except in the "wouldn't it be cool if I was in charge of everything and got to tell everyone what to do rather than having to kowtow to someone else's whims and rules" sense. I just don't want to burn.
Hell is mentioned maybe six or seven times in the bible.
According to Hell is mentioned 53 times in the bible this,
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another interpretation that does not do justice to the text.
Sorry, what Phd in theology and biblical studies do you have?
Just add an IMO behind that if it makes you uncomfortable.
And no Phd. Just a nearly completed Bachelor of Theology with honours (University level) and multiple awards for academic excellence.
Not that it matters even if I did have a Phd.
Indeed, and I am just about to complete a BA Hons in Theology and Ministry.
Having an education needn't make you believe less conservatively. - Oh look! Conservatives can be educated and intelligent as well
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Sorry for delayed responses - I've been ill.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I was just answering one, not both, sorry.
I do not understand what your prior answer had to do with either article I have quoted.
That if the effects are infinite there are two possibilities. Either they impact God, in which case God is mean, petty, and paltry. Or they impact other human beings - and the effect on other human beings is infinite because some scumbag created hell and sentences people there. I didn't explicitely deal with the idea that God is a puny miser, jealously huddling every last iota of grace lest someone misuse it because that is contrary IMO to any decent understanding of God. But that's what would be required for God to be affected eternally by the infinitely weaker mortals.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given that God set up his scales of justice and chooses to make them what they are this is clearly a case of "I wish you wouldn't make me hit you."
Well, He is the Creator.
So domestic violence is just peachy when legal rights are on the side of the more powerful.
It's always nice to be reminded that so-called Christian morality boils down to nothing more than Might Makes Right when you push it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
4: Restoration. Hell doesn't even come close to being restorative.
Indeed, restoration of God's order is what hell is about, at least in Aquinas' book. You have not explained why you think that hell fails at this.
Restorative justice is a term of art. The classic example is if I damage your car, I get fined to pay for a new one for you. My apologies for assuming you'd understand the terms.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So every justification for punishing the temporally wicked fails when applied to hell.
So far you have not shown that at all.
Simply because you are quibbling about a term you do not understand doesn't mean that I haven't demonstrated it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I do my level best to practice empiricism and to test what I believe.
Please would you expand on that? (Every time I read that sentence it just seems plain silly.)
How could you possibly isolate one particular belief from all other variables so that you could test it empirically?
Empiricism != the scientific method. When my beliefs about the world come into contact with evidence that contradicts them I do my best to update them. I do my best to work out what is and start from there rather than apply what must be and filter the world through that lens. I do not, however, claim complete success. Merely an ideal to aim for and IMO a more sensible one than putting myself in line with a being that I can neither see nor touch.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's after eating the apple. Before that there was no fear.
You've side-stepped the issue here. Why would the man be afraid of God if it was not wrong to eat the fruit?
Um... starting with your premise because God would demonstrate that God was evil by torturing the man eternally. The knowledge of good and evil includes the knowledge that others are evil. And being scared of someone that is near-omnipotent and that you now know to be evil becaue they do incredibly evil things like having others tortured eternally does not strike me as anything other than sensible.
Never mind that it was nakedness that caused Adam to hide.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
That's right - you are quoting the Serpent pretty much verbatim.
Given that God is the creator of the greatest evil possible (hell), and we have only God's word on the serpent then this is not the argument you think it is.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped talking about god".
Maybe this is a tangent but, on reflection, this illustrates the difference between agreement and obedience too.
Do you really mean that you'd quit just like that?
"Hey guys, I'm not okay with this whole rebel thing anymore ... So let's just call it off. I won't tell anyone about the rebel plans honest. Pinky swear."
I'm now no longer comparing this to God, but sometimes you're in whether you like it or not.
[ 28. June 2011, 13:17: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Sorry for delayed responses - I've been ill.
Hey, welcome back.
I've been posting a lot because I've been ill - but I'm beginning to feel better so RL might kick back in.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Empiricism != the scientific method. When my beliefs about the world come into contact with evidence that contradicts them I do my best to update them. I do my best to work out what is and start from there rather than apply what must be and filter the world through that lens. I do not, however, claim complete success. Merely an ideal to aim for and IMO a more sensible one than putting myself in line with a being that I can neither see nor touch.
"I do not claim complete success"???
You mean your beliefs are empirical sometimes and not at others. Just like everybody else. (Religious or otherwise.)
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Never mind that it was nakedness that caused Adam to hide.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given that God is the creator of the greatest evil possible (hell), and we have only God's word on the serpent then this is not the argument you think it is.
That tells us a lot about your presuppositions but doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
[ 28. June 2011, 13:44: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped talking about god".
Maybe this is a tangent but, on reflection, this illustrates the difference between agreement and obedience too.
Do you really mean that you'd quit just like that?
"Hey guys, I'm not okay with this whole rebel thing anymore ... So let's just call it off. I won't tell anyone about the rebel plans honest. Pinky swear."
I'm now no longer comparing this to God, but sometimes you're in whether you like it or not.
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
Come to think of it arn't children innocent by default anyway?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
"I do not claim complete success"???
You mean your beliefs are empirical sometimes and not at others. Just like everybody else. (Religious or otherwise.)
I mean it's the ideal I aim at. Which has consequences - such as being entirely incompatable with accepting Faith to be a virtue. Faith is what you use when you can't test through time, through negligence, or through weakness, or sometimes through deliberate fault.
quote:
He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
Let's just confirm this. See what the text itself says.
quote:
Genesis Chapter 3, verses 8-10 (KJV):
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Adam claimed to be afraid because he was naked. That is precisely what the text says. I don't know why you think that being worried about nakedness in front of God is worthy of the circus. Or being more worried about nakedness to God than nakedness to another naked person.
You can disagree with the interpretation of the text, but Adam himself claims that he hid because he was naked. To therefore object that the text doesn't say that is a reflection on your knowledge of the bible.
quote:
That tells us a lot about your presuppositions but doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
When you claimed that an argument was one like the snake, you were trying to cast an argument as out of bounds. I was pointing out that your attempted dismissal by comparison to someone you consider in the wrong shouldn't matter.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Adam hid himself because he heard the voice of God and was afraid because he was naked.
If I was in the house naked and the postman came to the door, I would hide myself!! (For his sake too)
It was the voice of God, God's imminent arrival, that made Adam hide.
Aaaargh, God's coming and I'm stark-bollock naked - He can't see me like this!! Where's that hedge!
[ 28. June 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
How can you talk in Wellhausen DH terms and then switch to 'Exodus and Deuteronomy'? This is what I mean by jumping around.
You don't have to read Genesis 3 through a covenantal lens, no. But you do have to read it in its immediate context and its canonical context.
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
This is so another human being can come along and reverse this trend through obedience (Romans 5).
The nature of God in traditional theologies is sidestepped and IMO all the really interesting questions of the text are ignored.
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
And yet in Ezekiel 28 you are quite happy that a person is described as being wise and yet rebelling against God?
I don't see the connection to Eve as I have said above. She was neither wise nor rejecting God
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
Which plain meaning would that be. Yours or Johnny's or mine?
Don't they teach you hermeneutics?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
This story simple?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Theosis is about how the gospel makes us sons of God and therefore become like God.
Theosis, according to many patristic writers (- the article IngoB linked to), does not mean becoming like God, but becoming god/s.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
we cannot become God by nature,; yet in a certain sense the divinized do "become God" by grace since they participate in the Divine Nature). Saint Basil the Great taught that "the highest of all things desired (is) to become God" by the power of the Holy Spirit 3. According to Saint Gregory Nazianzen, the Risen Christ "still pleads even now as Man for my salvation, for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His Incarnation" 4.
Pure nonsense.
Indeed - we agree on something.
I've never understood this idea of 'God becoming man so man can become God'. That doesn't appear in the Bible.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
Which plain meaning would that be. Yours or Johnny's or mine?
Don't they teach you hermeneutics?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
This story simple?
Well yes, I did hermeneutics in my degree.
All I am saying is that the genesis story is a lot simpler than the attempts to equate iot with Greek philosophty and Norse legend would have it.
That may well be a 'reader-response' on the part lof those who are immersed in such things, but it does rsather read into the story things that were not meant by the original writer - whether yuou believe it to be Moses or one of his peers, or some priest in post-exilic Jerusalem.
It really is like Shakespeare failing a modern day exam on Shakespearean interpretation.
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't eat. Garbled into don't touch. Touch without problem (there's a midrach saying the snake pushed Eve into the tree). Eat. Problem. Look what you did even though you didn't know it was evil. Leave. Now. Don't worry though. I'll be around, ensuring you get hurt every time you try to draw away - and then blaming the tortures I inflict on you. After all it's all your fault I'm doing this to you.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well yes, I did hermeneutics in my degree.
Then how can you keep harping on a "plain reading of scripture"?
I think it was something Luther harped on, but even the reformers couldn't agree on what a particular passage meant.
There is no such thing as plain reading. All interpretation is filtered through multiple lenses.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Eve sees no reason not to touch. Punished. Suffering entered the world through God's punishment. Why disobedience is not cool when all the reasons are good are not addressed. God comes out looking bad. Like a God that does not want his creation to be wise like him. Obey God at all costs. He's a nasty character.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't eat. Garbled into don't touch. Touch without problem (there's a midrach saying the snake pushed Eve into the tree). Eat. Problem. Look what you did even though you didn't know it was evil. Leave. Now. Don't worry though. I'll be around, ensuring you get hurt every time you try to draw away - and then blaming the tortures I inflict on you. After all it's all your fault I'm doing this to you.
Here's a box. But don't open it! You opened it! All the evils are coming out of it! But don't worry, hope comes out too!
How could it not be clear to anyone that these are metaphorical stories designed to explain something too complex to easily understand and communicate, especially for ancient peoples?
The so-called "creation" of evil is nothing more than actions based on the interaction between the spirit, which is unlimited, and the physical world, which is inherently limited.
Therefore people want to rest when work needs to be done, they want to eat when the food should go to others, they want to fulfill normal physical desires without regard to their effects on others. The spirit wants to over-ride and control these desires, but the body has its own agenda.
"Sin and salvation" is nothing more than this very ordinary, obvious, and unavoidable contest.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
For example, what's with bringing in the Midrash and having Eve pushed into the tree? What's that got to do with anything? It doesn't help illumine Scripture does it? Let the Bible speak for itself and it remains authentic and substantial. Start to sneer at it and mix it with dross and it becomes totally unsatisfying.
You won't agree, but hey, I'm happy with it.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
You don't have much imagination in your theoretical test cases do you? Does your superior officer have a German accent in this one?
Or more likely your straggly platoon of rebels come across a Farm house with the enemy on the other side and your Sergeant tells you to shoot first at whatever comes through the gate.
In RL it is possible but not that likely that you will have the luxury of being able to decide for yourself overtime.
But we digress ....
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I mean it's the ideal I aim at. Which has consequences - such as being entirely incompatable with accepting Faith to be a virtue. Faith is what you use when you can't test through time, through negligence, or through weakness, or sometimes through deliberate fault.
You've just dodged the issue. What you mean is that you would like to test all your beliefs empirically but you can't. No one can.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
See what the text itself says.
quote:
Genesis Chapter 3, verses 8-10 (KJV):
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Adam claimed to be afraid because he was naked. That is precisely what the text says. I don't know why you think that being worried about nakedness in front of God is worthy of the circus. Or being more worried about nakedness to God than nakedness to another naked person.
You can disagree with the interpretation of the text, but Adam himself claims that he hid because he was naked. To therefore object that the text doesn't say that is a reflection on your knowledge of the bible.
This is simple comprehension. If you wanted to highlight the key phrase then you missed half of it out.
" I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."
The text does not say that he was afraid because he was naked. It says he was afraid because he was naked and he had just heard God's voice. The reason why he is afraid is God's presence, the explanation for his fear is that he was naked.
The very next verse, v 11, then gives us the context for why this might make him afraid.
Just take this to any English literature Professor and ask them why they think the writer thinks Adam is afraid.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When you claimed that an argument was one like the snake, you were trying to cast an argument as out of bounds. I was pointing out that your attempted dismissal by comparison to someone you consider in the wrong shouldn't matter.
Who said I was dismissing it? I was pointing out the irony, but I was certainly not claiming it makes it out of bounds.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
You say that as if they randomly pick that explanation from the air rather than for the rest of the Torah and Hebrew scriptures. Again and again and again in the OT God gets angry at mankind's disobedience. It happens quite a lot in Genesis. The context gives us a ready made answer but you'd rather import a reason from a completely alien context.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
He quotes the end of Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 - which is the verse immediately preceding this passage! Of course there were no chapters in his bible and so Jesus quotes directly from this passage.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
Early indoctrination. Lack of thought and conversations with atheists, agnostics and committed Christians who were not raised in the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
I accept the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
I just don't accepted particular lenses of interpretation that have been applied to those scriptures.
But that's cool. Neither did Jesus. I'm in good company.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
You are still under the illusion that Scripture is simple.
Your education has been lacking IMO.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
It comes from a sincere and genuine attempt to understand the writings and teachings of Christianity rather than to simply accept them. It comes from genuinely trying to come to grips with that which is written, and to understand it at as deep a level as possible - something which entails looking from all sides rather than merely superficially.
quote:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
The anger comes from the raw moral sewage you are spilling. The moral perversions you preach.
You claim that your God is loving. You then show a God that tortures people he claims to love for eternity. That which you preach is love is what I believe to be its opposite. Your God is about as loving as Joseph Fritzl was to his daughters.
You claim that your God is just. You then show a God that tortures people for all eternity for actions by finite beings in a finite world, claiming the rules he has written as a pretext. About the most unjust rulings possible. Your God is less just than a kangaroo court or than Guantanamo Bay.
You claim that your God is merciful. Merciful because he doesn't have everyone tortured for eternity in Hell. A statement that's like saying Joseph Mengele was merciful because he didn't experiment on more people. Or that the Doctor in the Human Centipede is merciful for not abducting more victims. And remember that Hell is far worse than anything done by Dr Mengele or in any horror movie.
You claim that your God is holy. And because he is holy he can not stand the touch of the impure. To me the important feature of holiness is that sin can not touch the holy but the holy can walk amongst the sinful. Your God is about the least holy entity I can imagine. The light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. Not The Light Shone and then Hid Lest The Dark Touch It.
Loving, just, merciful, holy. These are all good things. But your God is almost the platonic ideal of being far from these qualities. By ascribing such qualities to a being that demonstrates the exact opposite behaviours, you are undermining the very value of Love, Justice, Mercy, and Holiness.
You are preaching that up is down, black is white, and that evil is good. The first two are ... irritating. But if the attempt to pervert good into evil by claiming evil to be good does not anger you then what the hell will?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've just dodged the issue. What you mean is that you would like to test all your beliefs empirically but you can't. No one can.
I am no more living my life according to perfectly empirical rules than you are perfectly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. No one can. I just try to where I can. This is only ducking matters if you failing to live up to perfect Christianity is ducking there.
I will stop claiming I try to be empirical when you stop claiming to follow Christ. Neither of us will be perfect there.
quote:
The text does not say that he was afraid because he was naked. It says he was afraid because he was naked and he had just heard God's voice.
When I posted you were claiming that the text clearly didn't say that Adam said he hid because he was naked. Adam was afraid to be seen because he was naked. To claim this certainly isn't circus material, as you claim.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
There is no such person. They are a caricature that happens to support your kind of religion. By 'accepting the truth of the Gospel' you only mean agreeing with your theology. Claiming it as truth is a fundamental error of judgement, and leads to exactly the kind of delusional way of thinking you describe.
quote:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me.
Some of your posts do have that effect on me.
quote:
I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
I think it's the smug, self-satisfied tone of paragraphs like this that undermine the good stuff to write. Why not consider the possibility that some of us slightly 'angry' people have looked very carefully over more than your 23 years of ministry at the simplistic kind of theology you churn out and perhaps very reluctantly concluded that it fails to adequately reflect reality.
[cross-posted]
[ 29. June 2011, 13:16: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
You say that as if they randomly pick that explanation from the air rather than for the rest of the Torah and Hebrew scriptures. Again and again and again in the OT God gets angry at mankind's disobedience. It happens quite a lot in Genesis. The context gives us a ready made answer but you'd rather import a reason from a completely alien context.
No. That's what Paul does in Romans 5. Alien context. He assumes human beings were created to live forever and not be immortal. When the text says no such thing.
And you're still ignoring my main points about wisdom and the contradictions in the text......
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
He quotes the end of Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 - which is the verse immediately preceding this passage! Of course there were no chapters in his bible and so Jesus quotes directly from this passage.
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I am no more living my life according to perfectly empirical rules than you are perfectly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. No one can. I just try to where I can. This is only ducking matters if you failing to live up to perfect Christianity is ducking there.
I will stop claiming I try to be empirical when you stop claiming to follow Christ. Neither of us will be perfect there.
I don't think that is a fair comparison.
I fail to live up to Christ's ideals all the time, but that is still my consistent goal.
I'm not complaining about our inconsistencies but rather that you are making a category error. You can not, do not and will not test even most of what you believe empirically. Every day you make countless decisions and actions that are based on beliefs that you simply have taken on trust.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When I posted you were claiming that the text clearly didn't say that Adam said he hid because he was naked. Adam was afraid to be seen because he was naked. To claim this certainly isn't circus material, as you claim.
I can't work out here whether you really think this or are just trying to wind me up. I've never claimed anything of the sort.
What I said was that his nakedness gave the immediate occasion of his shame and fear but it did not explain why he was afraid.
What if the text had said, "I hid because I was purple ... or because I was tall ... or because it 3.35pm ..."?
looking at the text and saying, "See, Adam wasn't afraid of God" would be completely missing the point. All you have done is pushed the question back to why he was afraid because he was purple ... tall ... it was 3.35pm ... or because he was naked.
And at that point the context is clear - he was afraid because he knew that he had disobeyed God.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And you're still ignoring my main points about wisdom and the contradictions in the text......
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
But you haven't given any contradictions in the text!
Let's re-cap...
- You told me that I was importing the idea of covenant into Genesis 1-3 because the context of the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch was too remote.
- However, your alleged contradiction comes about because in the book of Proverbs wisdom is to be sought after.
There are no contradictions to do with wisdom in the text. You are importing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
I know.
In his bible it was the same passage though. If he disagreed with it you'd think he would mention that while quoting from it don't you?
Do you really think that a conservative 1st century Rabbi like Jesus would quote from Genesis as describing the very work of God himself and that any of his hearers would assume that he treated the very next few words any differently?
(If I'm ever going to kick this cold I'd better get to bed. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
)
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let the Bible speak for itself and it remains authentic and substantial. Start to sneer at it and mix it with dross and it becomes totally unsatisfying.
You won't agree, but hey, I'm happy with it.
But surely if you just let the bible speak for itself without trying to unpack it you end up with the shellfish problem.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
You don't have much imagination in your theoretical test cases do you? Does your superior officer have a German accent in this one?
Or more likely your straggly platoon of rebels come across a Farm house with the enemy on the other side and your Sergeant tells you to shoot first at whatever comes through the gate.
In RL it is possible but not that likely that you will have the luxury of being able to decide for yourself overtime.
But we digress ....
No more of a west country accent.
And as you said earlier you were moving this away from the god example anyway.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Apparently going after ideals while acknowledging them to be impossible (as I explicitely did) is wrong in the world of Johnny S. I trust you don't try to promote mercy, justice, or any other ideal that humans can't fit.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I can't work out here whether you really think this or are just trying to wind me up. I've never claimed anything of the sort.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
Apparently you did claim it was circus territory.
quote:
What I said was that his nakedness gave the immediate occasion of his shame and fear but it did not explain why he was afraid.
And you are arguing against people who gave the nakedness as the proximate cause of his shame and explicitely stated reason to hide. And claiming that it was obvious that this was so. You didn't say it wasn't the point. You said it was circus territory.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's see. The Catholic Church also teaches that pre- and extra-marital sex is wrong - yet you're obsessed with its "approach to contraception." That's interesting, since if people in "sub-Saharan Africa" (or anywhere else) followed the first doctrine, the second wouldn't be a problem. See what I mean?
I see what you mean. And would agree with you if I had neither compassion nor knowledge of basic psychology.
Basic psychology is that humans are going to have sex with each other. Objecting that they are not following literally inhuman guidelines is daft. If moral teachings have any use at all they should lead people away from the darkness and to the light. Not be used to point and laugh and say "If you'd only done what I said things would be good." You know your teachings are going to fail. And when they fail the results are going to be worse than if you'd used the public health textbook ABC (Abstain; if you can't abstain, Be faithful; if you can't be faithful, use a Condom).
And the Roman Catholic approach here is one I find deeply un-Christian. Christ came for the sinners, not the Righteous. Saying "Well if only they were righteous then everything would work" is the opposite of this approach.
quote:
And gee, BTW: is it all right with you if "150 million Catholics" choose how they wish to approach their own marriage and childbearing life without your input?
As long as they are simply applying that to themselves, that's fine by me (and was when I was going out with a devout Catholic). The second they start to get in the way of public health in any way at all then no. Promoting the spread of diseases is not fine.
With RC doctrine, contraception is a Mortal Sin. That's as bad as it gets. It's the sort of thing you should prevent other people from doing.
quote:
And is it OK with you if other people don't go along with your particular views on Creationism? Why do you demand they change? People believe in all sorts of things in the world, you know. Going to crusade against astrology next?
Life's too short. Now if you were to mention Wakefield and the Anti-Vaccination lobby...
quote:
You might want to recognize that the Church has no real compulsive power in the world anymore - no real power of any kind, in fact - so that people who believe certain things might have decided for themselves that they wish to believe them.
And given that such can lead to the death of third parties (opposing decent sex-ed) if they merely believe them because they wish to it's doubly wrong.
quote:
Ingo has a point of view; he's chosen it himself. He might be right, in fact. How about granting that other people have the right to understand things the way they wish to, without needing your input?
Fine. Apply the same doctrine to IngoB as you are trying to to me. If he stops providing his input I will stop providing mine to him. If he doesn't want my input as part of running arguments he only has to stop providing his. However if you want there to be any sharing of views at all I have precisely the same rights IngoB does. (And I don't want him to shut up - there's a decent and honest human there even if I disagree with him).
quote:
You could actually be wrong, you know - or, at the very least, you could be completely missing out on things you can't see and/or don't understand.
I am wrong on some things. I know this. And like having my beliefs tested by those with different points of view.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But you haven't given any contradictions in the text!
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
I know.
In his bible it was the same passage though. If he disagreed with it you'd think he would mention that while quoting from it don't you?
Not if it was on an entirely different topic, no. Why would he?
("Oh and by the way, this next bit sucks - just ignore it all).
And my point being that the kind of theology Paul adopts on "Original Sin" and is later developed by Augustine is not discussed by Jesus AFAIK. It's irrelevant.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently you did claim it was circus territory.
And?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are arguing against people who gave the nakedness as the proximate cause of his shame and explicitely stated reason to hide. And claiming that it was obvious that this was so. You didn't say it wasn't the point. You said it was circus territory.
I know I did that and you are not explaining what difference any of this makes.
My point was that you cannot use the hiding bit to say that the man was not afraid of God. According to the text he was afraid because he was naked and he was afraid because he was naked because he was afraid of God - Grammatically, in the Hebrew of Genesis 3 v 10, the phrase 'I was afraid' is connected both backwards to the hearing of God's voice as well as forward to the being naked. The sequence of the Hebrew runs like this, "I heard God's voice ... and as a consequence of that I was afraid ... why was I afraid? Because I was naked ... So I hid."
The reference to the circus was to do with the board on the ship where we play games. ISTM that this thread was turning into a game of how we can come with increasingly creative reasons on why the man would not be afraid of God having directly broken God's one command. YMMV.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
Fine by me.
It's been a pressure.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
Fine by me.
It's been a pressure.
A Japanese Baptist! I had no idea.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's see. The Catholic Church also teaches that pre- and extra-marital sex is wrong - yet you're obsessed with its "approach to contraception." That's interesting, since if people in "sub-Saharan Africa" (or anywhere else) followed the first doctrine, the second wouldn't be a problem. See what I mean?
I see what you mean. And would agree with you if I had neither compassion nor knowledge of basic psychology.
Basic psychology is that humans are going to have sex with each other. Objecting that they are not following literally inhuman guidelines is daft. If moral teachings have any use at all they should lead people away from the darkness and to the light. Not be used to point and laugh and say "If you'd only done what I said things would be good." You know your teachings are going to fail. And when they fail the results are going to be worse than if you'd used the public health textbook ABC (Abstain; if you can't abstain, Be faithful; if you can't be faithful, use a Condom).
And the Roman Catholic approach here is one I find deeply un-Christian. Christ came for the sinners, not the Righteous. Saying "Well if only they were righteous then everything would work" is the opposite of this approach.
You're missing the point, Justinian. You're trying to argue that people are completely under the thumb of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception - but couldn't care less about its teachings when it comes to pre- or extramarital sex. Well, color me skeptical on that one.
When 98% of American Catholics are willing to be honest with pollsters about the fact that they are not opposed to the use of contraception, I'm kind of thinking the rest of the world doesn't have much of a problem with it either. As I said, last I looked the figure was 85% worldwide - but that was a few years ago. IOW, the people have already spoken, pretty loud and clear - exactly what I said above. (As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that the teaching is wrong; I just don't think, given the actual facts, that it really has much of an effect. And you still haven't offered any actual evidence that it does, or any examples of "manifest harm." So far, I'm the one who's offered some links to support my position; you're only offering your own personal opinion. So, how about it?)
Anyway, back to the original topic - a place where you yourself seem to ignore "basic psychology." You want to argue here that the "doctrine of Hell" - as you understand it, that is - is something set in stone; anything else that people have offered here is disallowed because you want to speak to "definitions" instead.
But of course belief about Hell isn't set in stone; people hold all sorts of different beliefs about it - lots more nuanced than the simplistic straw man you've got going here. Even the "classic" doctrine of Hell - the one you say Ingo has explained here - bears little relationship to your caricature of it. I do realize, though, that straw men can't survive actual on-the-ground reality - and that fundamentalism can't abide nuance of any kind.
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on
:
(I would be interested, though, in some sort of explanation about Hell from you.
How should such a doctrine work? How should a "loving God" deal with a Hitler, say (since you brought it up)?
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell? I don't think so, personally.
So I'd be interested in how you think the "classic doctrine of Hell" should be amended so that it works properly, in your opinion.)
(P.S.: I think you'll find that it goes something along the lines of what people have suggested on this thread and that you won't deal with or acknowledge.
I'd also like to suggest that your approach - smearing people who disagree with you - is not really very convincing. It's called ad hominem argument, and it betrays weakness, not strength.)
[ 30. June 2011, 12:28: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I would be interested, though, in some sort of explanation about Hell from you.
How should such a doctrine work? How should a "loving God" deal with a Hitler, say (since you brought it up)?
Purgatory, not hell. If Hitler were to be punished for ten thousand years, that might well be just. And a million years is not something I'm qualified to argue. But there is a vast difference between one million years and eternity. Eternity is massively disproportionate, and denies the possibilities of forgiveness, redemption, or grace. Making God ultimately graceless except to his favourites. And ultimately creating the greatest evil imaginable. A finite system on the other hand where you do not have an eternal hell but there is a system of punishment need not run into these problems.
And that's if the loving God doesn't act in time to prevent Hitler.
quote:
I'd also like to suggest that your approach - smearing people who disagree with you - is not really very convincing. It's called ad hominem argument, and it betrays weakness, not strength.)
I'm fascinated to see where I'm smearing. Give me evidence that it's not simply to do with their arguments. Yes, I am accusing people of supporting evil. And promoting it. Because that's what many moral arguments come down to - what is good and what is evil? So when Mudfrog asked I told him. What's the rest?
It is not smearing to tell someone that I am strongly disagreeing with them because I believe they are preaching evil when they ask why there's passion in the disagreement. And it may be ad hominem, but it is very much a relevant one that does not undermine my argument. Or do you have other examples in mind?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're missing the point, Justinian. You're trying to argue that people are completely under the thumb of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception - but couldn't care less about its teachings when it comes to pre- or extramarital sex. Well, color me skeptical on that one.
No. You are creating a straw man out of my position and then turning it fundamentalist because that seems to be what you wish to argue about.
I am arguing that the Catholic Church has influence. I'm arguing not that people always do what Rome says - but that it is one factor amongst others they take into account.
quote:
(As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that the teaching is wrong; I just don't think, given the actual facts, that it really has much of an effect. And you still haven't offered any actual evidence that it does, or any examples of "manifest harm."
And you need to re-read my posts because you are mistaken. To repeat myself from page 5 of this thread:
From first and second hand knowledge, I disagree that nobody pays any attention to it. The two cases that spring to mind that I have personal knowledge are are (i) a friend on the board of an international aid charity doing her best to prevent it having anythng to do with contraception in sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) some fuckwit getting the free condom box removed from a friend's college by using a needle on all the condoms (that one might not have been linked to Catholicism).
Now stop claiming that things I have direct knowledge of and have posted on this thread are things that don't exist and I haven't posted evidence for.
quote:
So far, I'm the one who's offered some links to support my position; you're only offering your own personal opinion. So, how about it?)
You've offered one link. I've offered what I have seen and heard. And I'm saying that something exists. One case from me is sufficient to demonstrate that it does. Besides, your link about the numbers of Catholic women who use birth control is irrelevant - the problem is that Catholic organisations try to prevent birth control being available. Link for link. (And this ties in with my general experience of the RCC - the individual people are generally good, the institutions not so much).
quote:
But of course belief about Hell isn't set in stone; people hold all sorts of different beliefs about it - lots more nuanced than the simplistic straw man you've got going here. Even the "classic" doctrine of Hell - the one you say Ingo has explained here - bears little relationship to your caricature of it.
Oh. Really. IngoB has been linking as to why eternal punishment is just. And the necessary and sufficient condition for my arguments to hold is eternal punishment. I do realise that you would rather try and dismiss me as not understanding theology and arguing against what people don't really believe when there are those actively preaching it in the thread.
quote:
I do realize, though, that straw men can't survive actual on-the-ground reality - and that fundamentalism can't abide nuance of any kind.
In which case would you please take your straw men off the field?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell?
Such a God is not any more (or less, for that matter) worthy of worship, no. But His reality would be a much better one to exist in.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell?
Such a God is not any more (or less, for that matter) worthy of worship, no. But His reality would be a much better one to exist in.
I think that you can have your cake and eat it too.
I say that God doesn't pay any more attention to Hitler than anyone else. He loves Hitler exactly as much as He loves everyone. He doesn't punish or harm Hitler in any way.
But if Hitler continues to believe and live as he apparently did in this world, he will attract to himself trouble from day one. He will not have an enjoyable existence. Not that God punishes him, but that hatred begets hatred and rebounds on a person in the same way that love begets love. He will come into the company of people as fierce or fiercer than himself and they will make his life uncomfortable.
God shows His love to Hitler by allowing him to do as he wishes. If he changes he benefits from the results of those changes. If he does not, though, then he continues with the results of his actions.
That is what hell is. We make our own hell.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0